1945 Atomic bomb is dropped on Hiroshima

[Sarge]

I know libs will spend the weekend in mourning, but I say "Good on ya Harry"



http://www.historychannel.com/tdih/tdih.jsp?category=worldwarii

On this day in 1945, at 8:16 a.m. Japanese time, an American B-29 bomber, the Enola Gay, drops the world's first atom bomb, over the city of Hiroshima. Approximately 80,000 people are killed as a direct result of the blast, and another 35,000 are injured. At least another 60,000 would be dead by the end of the year from the effects of the fallout.

U.S. President Harry S. Truman, discouraged by the Japanese response to the Potsdam Conference's demand for unconditional surrender, made the decision to use the atom bomb to end the war in order to prevent what he predicted would be a much greater loss of life were the United States to invade the Japanese mainland. And so on August 5, while a "conventional" bombing of Japan was underway, "Little Boy," (the nickname for one of two atom bombs available for use against Japan), was loaded onto Lt. Col. Paul W. Tibbets' plane on Tinian Island in the Marianas. Tibbets' B-29, named the Enola Gay after his mother, left the island at 2:45 a.m. on August 6. Five and a half hours later, "Little Boy" was dropped, exploding 1,900 feet over a hospital and unleashing the equivalent of 12,500 tons of TNT. The bomb had several inscriptions scribbled on its shell, one of which read "Greetings to the Emperor from the men of the Indianapolis" (the ship that transported the!

bomb to the Marianas).

There were 90,000 buildings in Hiroshima before the bomb was dropped; only 28,000 remained after the bombing. Of the city's 200 doctors before the explosion; only 20 were left alive or capable of working. There were 1,780 nurses before-only 150 remained who were able to tend to the sick and dying.

According to John Hersey's classic work Hiroshima, the Hiroshima city government had put hundreds of schoolgirls to work clearing fire lanes in the event of incendiary bomb attacks. They were out in the open when the Enola Gay dropped its load.

There were so many spontaneous fires set as a result of the bomb that a crewman of the Enola Gay stopped trying to count them. Another crewman remarked, "It's pretty terrific. What a relief it worked."

[luckydevil]

I know libs will spend the weekend in mourning, but I say "Good on ya Harry"

ugh

Truman rots in hell.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by luckydevil


ugh

Truman rot in hell.

Like I said..................

[dreamingwolf]

why will Truman rot in hell

[luckydevil]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf
why will Truman rot in hell

Because the use of the bombs was unnecessary

A war crime, plain and simple

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by luckydevil


ugh

Truman rots in hell.

Yeah, rot in hell for dropping the bomb on a country that sneak attacked us.



Rot in hell for telling them to surrender or we are going to rain hell on you.



Rot in hell for saving 1,000,000 American lives, one of which was my Grandfather, before my mother was born.


How bout your family?



Yeah, rot in hell:rolleyes: :doh:

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by luckydevil


Because the use of the bombs was unnecessary

A war crime, plain and simple

Lol, really?

Unecessary from who's stand point?

Certainly not the Marines stationed on SaiPan or any other sh!thole pacific island.

Certainly not from the 2000 sailors entombed in the USS Arizona.

I guess I could see it though coming from some one sitting in front of their computer. It's a little hard to fathom a horrible war like the pacific campaign was for our troops, not to mention the Japs.

[luckydevil]

Unecessary from who's stand point?


General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, General Clarke, etc

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

Originally posted by luckydevil


Because the use of the bombs was unnecessary

A war crime, plain and simple

In a sense you're right. We could have starved them out as there were more USS Indianapolis(i think that was the name of the ship sunk just before the bombs were dropped) Of course, the spectacle of the bomb was more convincing than slow starvation and killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese slowly is a lot better than disintegrating them.

There have been fewer more war-mobilized societies in history. Germany had a larger 'peace faction' than Japan did.

UNtil the nukes.

I understand your sentiment, but after reviewing the facts and the revisionist history I've decided that the truth isn't what it's made out to be. THe bomb wasn't merely dropped to keep Russia from other areas(not such a bad thing, by the way) or to show off for them or to test the bomb--it WAS to end the war.

If you're reading Takaki to get an objective view on the war, you'll not find it.

I at least know that you're consistent and think the same about the Tokyo firebombing.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by luckydevil



General Eisenhower, General MacArthur, General Clarke, etc


Really, you got a quote for me to read with them saying that?


I could maybe see MacArthur, but no responsible commander could look the loss of 1,000,000 of your fellow countrymen, look them in the face and say their lives would have been better spent invading some fanatical island country not worth the effort.



So if you could, I'd like a link to the quote.

[Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin]

I'd also note that an esteemed general named Westmoreland didn't think that pacification, small anti-insurgency and civilian defense forces would do the trick in Vietnam.

Sometimes people don't want to try new things.

I have a hard time believing they had an issue with atom bombs but not with the other bombing devastation of Japan(which by the way, DID NOT force capitulation as the nukes helped to do)

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin


I at least know that you're consistent and think the same about the Tokyo firebombing.


The fire bombing was my next post.


What was it? 80,000 in one night?



Is a couple tons of incendiary's better than one single bomb if the outcome is the same?

[Sarge]

Originally posted by luckydevil




A war crime, plain and simple

Not to my grandfather, who as a Army medic got to see first hand the atrocities commited by the Japanese in the Philippines, and was sitting on a boat off the coast of Japan in Aug 1945, ready for the land invasion.

[Ignatius J.]

Every bit of the argument seems wrong. It is a time for mourning. You can agree that it was neccesary, but mourn it's neccesity. Ever after we have lived in the shadow of those two moments. These were not the best of times, and should not be taken lightly. President Truman did what he thought was best, and I could never condemn someone whose shoes I could not fill. But even he must have lain awake for nights thereafter.

It is worth mourning.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Sarge


Not to my grandfather, who as a Army medic got to see first hand the atrocities commited by the Japanese in the Philippines, and was sitting on a boat off the coast of Japan in Aug 1945, ready for the land invasion.

Mine was also a medic, in Saipan. ready for the invasion.

Doubt all the soldiers from the Atlantic theater were looking foward to to going to another war on the other side of the world after living through the frozen hell of europe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

But somehow this was better?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II




The first firebombing raid was on Kobe on February 3, 1945, and following its relative success the USAAF continued the tactic. Much of the armor and defensive weaponry of the bombers was also removed to allow increased bomb loads; Japanese air defense in terms of night-fighters and anti-aircraft guns was so feeble it was hardly a risk. The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23–24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city. Following on that success 334 B-29s raided on the night of March 9–10, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Around 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city was destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. It was the most destructive conventional raid of the war against Japan. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km²) in total at a cost of only 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26.

[luckydevil]

So if you could, I'd like a link to the quote.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm


MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
------------------------
first link I got( god bless google)

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by luckydevil


http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm


MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
------------------------
first link I got( god bless google)





MacArthur, just like I called it. All this link tells me is that the japanese thought they were going to call our bluff. They either didn't think we had the bomb, or didn't think we'd use it.

I'd rather have one million Americans alive than save the life of 80,000 ignorant stubborn people at the cost of a single American.

[Ax]

Good move Harry.

R.I.P.

[nonniey]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrSilverMaC
[B]

Mine was also a medic, in Saipan. ready for the invasion.

Doubt all the soldiers from the Atlantic theater were looking foward to to going to another war on the other side of the world after living through the frozen hell of europe.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

But somehow this was better?

Better than invading? Seriously? As many casualties as bombing raids caused during WWII it was only a fraction of the casualties (Both Civilian and Military) caused by ground forces. An invasion of the Japanese Islands would have caused millions more Japanese casualties. So yes the bombings were somehow better.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by luckydevil


Because the use of the bombs was unnecessary

A war crime, plain and simple

People don't like to admit it, but I don't see a difference between nuking or firebombing entire cities, and terrorism.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally posted by Liberty


People don't like to admit it, but I don't see a difference between nuking or firebombing entire cities, and terrorism.

:rolleyes:

[dreamingwolf]

you know maybe we should listen to liberty, what hes saying is that the terrorists are equatable to a warring nation and using normal war tactics. So from this we can make the leap that since the terrorists claim their base as all arabs and muslims arround the world then those people should be viewed as their "nation" and they become the terrorists national assets, so when terrorists attack and have linkage to a particular group of muslims or muslim political interest we should respond against their corrolating population groups to disuade them from continuing or just simply eliminate them if they persistantly beg attack.

liberty might have a good idea here, I think it sounds barbaric but hey if he thinks its a good way to look at muslims I say we go with it.

[Bang]

Aside from the fact that we were going to have to invade Japan to endd the war, and how many lives that would have cost, sometimes retribution and punsihment is a useful tool.
Consider not only the atrocities committed by the Japanese during our time in the war, but also some of the most horrifying and barbaric atrocities ever recorded.
The Rape of Nanking.. http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/holocaust77/rapenanking.htm

Flip thru that for a little while.

Not only did these imprerialist armies need to be stopped, not only did an end of the war need to happen before an invasion.. the people needed to be taught a lesson they'd never ever forget.
And what do you know,, it stopped the war in it's tracks.

Ask the Chinese, Fillipino, and other asian people who lived under the yoke of Japanese imperialism how they felt about it.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by dreamingwolf
you know maybe we should listen to liberty, what hes saying is that the terrorists are equatable to a warring nation and using normal war tactics. So from this we can make the leap that since the terrorists claim their base as all arabs and muslims arround the world then those people should be viewed as their "nation" and they become the terrorists national assets, so when terrorists attack and have linkage to a particular group of muslims or muslim political interest we should respond against their corrolating population groups to disuade them from continuing or just simply eliminate them if they persistantly beg attack.

liberty might have a good idea here, I think it sounds barbaric but hey if he thinks its a good way to look at muslims I say we go with it.

Wow what a useless post, I mean seriously you would ahve been better off posting a picture of a hippo.

If you don't think it is terrorism why don't you define terrorism and compare it to the event. What I define as terrorism is the premeditated use of violence against a civillian population to scare the population into acquiescing to certain political demands. Now if you think it is different then please provide your own definition.



Aside from the fact that we were going to have to invade Japan to endd the war, and how many lives that would have cost, sometimes retribution and punsihment is a useful tool.
Consider not only the atrocities committed by the Japanese during our time in the war, but also some of the most horrifying and barbaric atrocities ever recorded.
The Rape of Nanking.. http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust...rapenanking.htm

Flip thru that for a little while.

Not only did these imprerialist armies need to be stopped, not only did an end of the war need to happen before an invasion.. the people needed to be taught a lesson they'd never ever forget.
And what do you know,, it stopped the war in it's tracks.

Ask the Chinese, Fillipino, and other asian people who lived under the yoke of Japanese imperialism how they felt about it.

~Bang

Bang, I have seen Serbs use that exact same logic in defending the massacre at Srebrenica.

[Bang]

there is no logic in war, Liberty.
Comparing us to the serbs.. did we go on a campaign of ethnic cleansing? Or did we go on a campaign to stop an aggressive imperialistic nation who were trampling the rights of millions across the pacific rim?

How does this compare?

People can use any excuses they want to justify what they've done. However, just making an excuse doesn't mean they're right. I don't see ethnic cleansing ( ah screw the nice name... racial genocide) as comparable. We didn't try to kill every japanese, like the serbs did with their muslim neighbors, we tried to end a long and bloody war in which NO one was fighting with kid gloves on.
Sixty years later, Japan is a prosperous powerful and PEACEFUL nation .

every act of war is an act of terrorism. The very definition of war is the attempt to force your will on the other side. In terms of civilians being used as targets.. that was a nasty vicious war in which all sides targetted civilians. This time isn't comparable. We're not targetting civilians with large bombing raids,, in fact, our air campaign at the outset of the Iraq war was a display of practically pinpoint accuracy, with complete regard given to safety of civilians.

~Bang

[du7st]

Luckydevil - thanks for the MacAuthur quotes.

I am more familiar with the German side of WWII but my opinion on all these matters is pretty simple. Not a single country had clean hands before or after the war. Certain decisions had to be made and with stakes so high its hard to fault protecting your own interests.

[70-chip]

"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted

Given "Dugout Doug's" personality I'm sure this factored into his opinion.

The casualties expected for Operation Downfall were so enormous that the body bags ordered as part of the planning were still being used up to the end of the Vietnam war. It must also be sonsidered that at the that poi8nt of the war there was a legitimate concern over our troop strenghts. The ETO ad PTO up that point had significantly drained our numbers.

Here are some details of the planned invasion.

Operation Downfall (http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm)

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Bang
there is no logic in war, Liberty.
Comparing us to the serbs.. did we go on a campaign of ethnic cleansing? Or did we go on a campaign to stop an aggressive imperialistic nation who were trampling the rights of millions across the pacific rim?

How does this compare?

People can use any excuses they want to justify what they've done. However, just making an excuse doesn't mean they're right. I don't see ethnic cleansing as comparable. We didn't try to kill every japanese, like the serbs did with their muslim neighbors, we tried to end a long and bloody war in which NO one was fighting with kid gloves on.
Sixty years later, Japan is a prosperous powerful and PEACEFUL nation.

~Bang

I didn't compare the US with the Serbs I am far less forgiving of the SErbs because well, it happened in the 90's and people should know better, but let me clarify one thing before I have to go to work.

What the Serbs said of Srebrenica was that these people will fight us to death one way or another. And once the the muslims surrendered the city after many months of siege the serbs decided to kill all the men of fighting age. Why? Because Muslims did a similar thing to a smaller serb town years before. They said because if we let these people go or even they will come back and try to kill us. So we have to kill them now when we have the chance. They said, we needed to teach them a lesson, if we kill a lot of people now they might now be too terrified do it again. In fact, they said that if they killed a lot of Muslims in one attack then they can actually save more lives by ending the conflict because the other side was just too scared. I think the fundemental difference is that the Serbs weren't as good at killing.

you ask a terrorist today why he attack civillians and not soldiers he might give you the same reasons.

Now you can try to justify the event but don't call it by any other name than terrorism because that is what it is.

Now I have to go to work, when I come back I will post again.

[stevenaa]

"If you don't think it is terrorism why don't you define terrorism and compare it to the event. What I define as terrorism is the premeditated use of violence against a civillian population to scare the population into acquiescing to certain political demands."


The defense of our country to attack can NEVER be considered terrorism. It was an act of war. There is such a huge difference that you really show your ignorance and blind faith to your liberal ideologies with statements such as that.

Even your own definition doesn't equate the bombing with terrorism. The bombing was not done to get a population to acquiesce to political demands. It was about ending a war started by the enemy attacking our country. This was about preventing untold loss of American human lives that would have resulted from an invasion of Japan.


Edit:


ter·ror·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Now, by this definition you could say that Japans attack on Pearl Harbor was an act of terrorism. But, in no way could our response be considered such.

[Cdowwe]

Originally posted by luckydevil


Because the use of the bombs was unnecessary

A war crime, plain and simple

:doh: Vote for stupidest quote ever

[Bang]

Originally posted by Liberty


I didn't compare the US with the Serbs I am far less forgiving of the SErbs because well, it happened in the 90's and people should know better, but let me clarify one thing before I have to go to work.

What the Serbs said of Srebrenica was that these people will fight us to death one way or another. And once the the muslims surrendered the city after many months of siege the serbs decided to kill all the men of fighting age. Why? Because Muslims did a similar thing to a smaller serb town years before. They said because if we let these people go or even they will come back and try to kill us. So we have to kill them now when we have the chance. They said, we needed to teach them a lesson, if we kill a lot of people now they might now be too terrified do it again. In fact, they said that if they killed a lot of Muslims in one attack then they can actually save more lives by ending the conflict because the other side was just too scared. I think the fundemental difference is that the Serbs weren't as good at killing.


Unfortunately, fear and terror are a part of war. We call our enemy terrorists because we don't want to call the Muslim, since not all muslims are the enemy, and they don't have a single nationality.
Killing or incapacitating the men of fighting age is a long standing tactic of warfare. It's savage and barbaric, but it's done because if you don't, the odds are strong they'll fight you again.
War is not a business that is governed by civility or our own individual personal morals. It follows a simple animalistic ideal. Survive.

I'm not happy we dropped the bomb. Overall, i think the bomb is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this world.
However we do know that the Nazis were experimenting with it, and man, imagine the world had they developed it first.
Scary to think of.
At least, as a nation, we are by and large responsible with it. We used it once, in dire circumstance, and never since. And even when it has come close, like in October of 61, cooler heads and common sense have always prevailed.
I can only hope that we never have to use it again, and that these radicals who run the terrorist groups never ever get their hands on one. I think since we developed it, and have been the only nation to ever use it, it is somewhat our responsibility to make sure that the horror of it is never unleashed again.

~Bang

[The Showstopper]

Originally posted by Liberty


People don't like to admit it, but I don't see a difference between nuking or firebombing entire cities, and terrorism.

there is a pretty big difference, seein as how this particular incident ended ww2, but it probably wont matter, you probably have your mind made up like most hippies and think we shouldnt go to war, we should only drive vw vans or walk and not use anyone else and walk around in greatful dead stuff all day

[Bang]

Originally posted by The Showstopper


there is a pretty big difference, seein as how this particular incident ended ww2, but it probably wont matter, you probably have your mind made up like most hippies and think we shouldnt go to war, we should only drive vw vans or walk and not use anyone else and walk around in greatful dead stuff all day

You sound like you've been eating the mushrooms yourself.

~Bang

[Yomar]

To mourn the death of 200,000 civilians is liberal. You are a sad joke Sarge

[Painkiller]

In my mind, there is no question we should have dropped the bomb, but that doesn't mean I think it was a good thing. The Japanese started the war, and they brought their hell upon them by refusing to surrender. 1,000,000 American lives vs 80,000 Japanese isn't a debate, it's common sense. Truman did the right thing. It was a terrible thing, but the right thing none the less. There were really no other realistic options.

[Painkiller]

and I wonder how many of these same civilians that were killed in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have fought our troops to the death had we attempted a mainland invation.

[BlueTalon]

Dang, there's a lot of ground to cover here.

Liberty, bombing cities was just the way war was fought in the 40's. Nobody particulary wanted to target civilians and non military facilities, but we just didn't have the ability to be that selective in our targets. That's actually why the Americans sent their bombers over Germany during the day, so we could be more specific in our targeting, at greater risk to our men and aircraft -- as opposed to the Brits and the Germans, who carpet-bombed at night in a safer environment.

It was significant and revealing about our Japanese enemy that they didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb. If they were that unwilling to surrender after being nuked once, imagine how unwilling to surrender they would have been if we'd have invaded. The number of Japanese lives lost in those two bombings was small compared to the number of Japanes lives that would have been lost and amount of destruction that would have been caused in a ground war on the Japanese main islands. (Not to mention the number of American lives that would have been lost)

Someone posted earlier that MacArthur was against it because the Japanese would never renounce their emperor. Well, in effect, they did. When he went on the radio to announce the Japanese surrender, he basically lost his deity status. They still had an emperor, they didn't renounce him entirely, but he was no longer the divine leader of the country. The net effect is the same. Bottom line, MacArthur's grounds for objection were wrong, and the person posting them didn't successfully make his point.

[Riggo-toni]

The Japanese not only refused to surrender after the 1st bomb, the military attempted a coup against the Emperor for insisting on surrendering after the 2nd.


My Uncle:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1086089,00.html

Morris R. Jeppson, 83
Weapon Test Officer on the Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Saturday, Jul. 23, 2005
I joined the service when I was 19. I couldn’t pass the test to be a pilot but I joined nevertheless and was sent to Boca Raton in March of 1943. Boca Raton was basic training and from there a group of went to Yale University for communications training and at the end of the program, in December, we became second lieutenants. A smaller group went to Harvard for air force school for five months of electrical engineering training. Then a smaller group was sent to MIT for basic radar science and engineering. We were sent to Florida to be reassigned and seven of us were requisitioned to go to Wendover, Utah, where the 509th B-29 Group was being formed under Colonel Paul W. Tibbets. At Wendover, we were not met by the Air Force, but by Robert Bigham Brode, a professor of physics from UC Berkeley. He gave us a kind of greeting lecture, saying that this was a very highly classified program that we were to be involved with and turned us over to Air Force security and we were assigned to a classified area on the base of Wendover Field.


The people at Los Alamos who wanted Air Force people to come in and participate in the development of the fusing system that would go into the bomb they were preparing to use against Japan. We made occasional trips to Los Alamos.

We worked with a Dr. Edward Doll, a civilian with a Ph.D. from Caltech in electrical engineering who was our immediate boss in charge of the electronics of the weapons. There were the same electronics in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but different types of bombs. We were being trained to help with the development of the electronics in the fusing system, and then to fly these things when it was finally developed and the bomb was ready. Radar is very critical. Dropped from 30,000 ft., the bombs weighed 5 tons and they were approaching the ground at the speed of sound. They were intended to have maximum blast effect so they could not be detonated when they hit the ground because the ground would absorb a lot of the energy. They had to be detonated above the ground, at about 1500-1800 ft. At 1500 ft above the ground, you only have one and a half seconds for this thing to decide it’s going to detonate when it’s supposed to.

On one of the trips to Los Alamos, I went in the library to see if I could learn what was going on. The words “nuclear” and “atomic” were never permitted to be spoken outside of that high-tech area of Los Alamos. It was never spoken at Wendover. I found a well-worn book that had been withdrawn from publication but one that talked about the nuclear fission and possibility of making of atomic bombs, so I realized that that’s what we were working on.

The B-29s would fly with test bombs and drop it on targets on the Salton Sea desert and one of our group would go with each mission. We moved our test equipment from one plane to another and didn’t develop relationships with any particular crew. We were not crew members—we moved from one to another. Our program moved overseas in June of 1945 to Tinian Island. There were four big runways and 400 B-29s based there, and several more based in Guam and Saipan. And now we’re flying the Hiroshima mission.

Most people don’t know the fact the Enola Gay had stenciled on its nose the names of just the nine crew members, the normal crew members. But there were three others on board, and one of them was Captain William S. Parsons, who was in military command of Los Alamos. In other words, he and Oppenheimer ran Los Alamos. He was the mission commander. If anything went wrong, this particular mission was valued at $2 billion. I was to tell him if there was a problem and I was to tell him also if the problem was serious enough that they should take the bomb back to Tinian

We had breakfast after midnight and were taken by a truck out to the plane. My role was to test the electronics on the bomb all the way from the battery that operated the circuitry to the timing clocks and the barometric switches and the radars that had to be turned on.

The arming of the bomb was about half an hour before the bomb was dropped. My last job was to climb into the bomb bay and remove those three testing plugs, painted green and each about the size of a saltshaker. Those plugs isolated the testing system from the bomb, so there was no chance of any voltage getting from the bomb to the testing system. I pulled those plugs and put in three red firing plugs to arm the bomb. From that point on, the bomb was running itself.

The focus was entirely on making sure that thing worked. I knew from test drops that it took about 43 seconds from the time that the plane jerked up--when the bomb left--to the time of the flash or explosion. I counted to myself to 43. Nothing happened, and that was my moment of real worry. A couple of seconds later, the flash came--reported by people from the front of the plane--and I knew that I had miscounted the time and that the thing actually worked.

People were looking down and seeing this enormous cloud coming up and the destruction spreading out from the base--with flames and black smoke and white smoke. And that's the point that it's somber because you know a lot of people are getting destroyed down there with the city. No joy at that point. But it was a job that was done.

Everyone by this time was tired. When we landed, the plane was greeted by several hundred people, a whole group of Army, Navy, Air Force generals and admirals. I was lost in the crowd, so it didn't make any difference. The crew went off to a debriefing. Nobody knew particularly what my role or our group's role was, so I went back to my tent. Sitting on the edge of my bunk was a Navy lieutenant whom I had grown up with from the first grade--my best friend Jack Scott. I didn't know he was even on the island, but he said, "Come to the Navy base on the other end of the island. We have a good officers' mess there, and we'll have a good meal and a good bar." So we drove down there and had dinner, and there were several Navy officers there. One of them turned to me and asked, "What did you do today?" I'd heard a lot of their stories, so I thought I'd make just one remark. I said, "I think we ended the war today."

A shorter version of this account appears in the Aug. 1, 2005 issue of TIME Magazine

[Major Harris]

Originally posted by Liberty




Now you can try to justify the event but don't call it by any other name than terrorism because that is what it is.



your opinion does not equal fact, lib.

[codeorama]

Here's the deal IMO.

It's sad that anyone has had to die in history because of war. Period. War is pretty damn ignorant IMO.

But 2 things about the use of the nukes in WWII.
1. I honestly don't think that we understood the long term consequences at that time, ie: the radiation, scale of death and destruction and the fact that we are the only nation to ever use nukes makes many distrust us greatly.
2. I don't blame Truman for doing it and compared to an invasion, I'd pick using the a bomb every time. Japan pulled a cheap shot on us with Pearl Harbor and they didn't know when to quit, it's sad, but ultimately, it was their fault, not ours.

Finally, if you have to be a liberal to mourn the loss of life, then I"m proud to be one. Mourning the loss of life is not the same as stating that it should have never happend or that it was criminal. War sucks, period.

[Shotgun Styles]

Terrorist: One who attacks civilians to achieve political or military goals.

Heroshima makes 9-11 look like a campfire...

[Cdowwe]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles
Terrorist: One who attacks civilians to achieve political or military goals.

Heroshima makes 9-11 look like a campfire...

Hiroshima is how its spelled. We were at war with Japan by the way. The 911 hijackers were not at war with us....they just hate us.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Cdowwe
The 911 hijackers were not at war with us....they just hate us.

Actually, they were at war with us. We just weren't at war with them.

Hey Shotgun, name any war in history that you think was justified. Then tell me if civilians were attacked. Oh, and by the way, do you happen to know if Hiroshima had any military significance? Or do you just think we targeted it for a nuke because there was nothing there but civilians?

[Bang]

Originally posted by BlueTalon
Dang, there's a lot of ground to cover here.

Liberty, bombing cities was just the way war was fought in the 40's. Nobody particulary wanted to target civilians and non military facilities, but we just didn't have the ability to be that selective in our targets. That's actually why the Americans sent their bombers over Germany during the day, so we could be more specific in our targeting, at greater risk to our men and aircraft -- as opposed to the Brits and the Germans, who carpet-bombed at night in a safer environment.


Just a nitpick for the sake of historic accuracy. We did indeed target civilians in WWII and indeed called the campaign "terror bombing". We (The Allies, not just American forces) bombed civilian populations in Germany to terrorize them into giving up, and for vengeance over civilian bombings against everyone within reach of the Luftwaffe.
We raided during daylight hours for accuracy's sake, it's true, but as the campaign went, we lost one HELL of a large percentage of our overall air forces in the European theatre.
But, the air war in Europe is perhaps the greatest illustration of the historical fact, the greatest strength of America is it's people and vast resources. We simply built more planes than they could shoot out of the sky, and kept sending them. We built more ships than they could sink and kept loading them with more tanks than they could blow up and kept sending them.

We did target specifically as you said, sometimes to no avail, targeting back then was hit and miss. But by sheer force of numbers we destroyed key industrial and transportation resources, and throttled their ability to make war.

But, we did target civilians in World War Two in Europe and in Japan with the intent to make them suffer & scare them into giving up .
Warfare is not a nice thing, there's no morality in it no matter how you try, and the fact is, as new and more powerful weapons come into play, the rules for their use are written as they go along. During the peace between WW1 and II there was not really all that much development of aircraft and their strategic uses. During the second world war, technology jumped forward by leaps and bounds,, astounding advances, in a very VERY short time. You could arguably say that in the history of all humankind, the period between 1940 and 1950 saw more invention and greater leaps forward in technology than in any period previous and since. (For good or bad regardless. Now we take such quantum leaps every year,, we're used to it. in 1966 every American would be holding their breath to see if the shuttle crew would make it back alive right now. As it is, we don't even pay much attention to it.)
I think sometimes we forget we have the tremendous benefit of hindsight when we think of these issues. Back then there really WERE dark evil empires trying to take over the world, and damn near succeeding.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Bang


Unfortunately, fear and terror are a part of war. We call our enemy terrorists because we don't want to call the Muslim, since not all muslims are the enemy, and they don't have a single nationality.
Killing or incapacitating the men of fighting age is a long standing tactic of warfare. It's savage and barbaric, but it's done because if you don't, the odds are strong they'll fight you again.
War is not a business that is governed by civility or our own individual personal morals. It follows a simple animalistic ideal. Survive.

I'm not happy we dropped the bomb. Overall, i think the bomb is one of the worst things that has ever happened to this world.
However we do know that the Nazis were experimenting with it, and man, imagine the world had they developed it first.
Scary to think of.
At least, as a nation, we are by and large responsible with it. We used it once, in dire circumstance, and never since. And even when it has come close, like in October of 61, cooler heads and common sense have always prevailed.
I can only hope that we never have to use it again, and that these radicals who run the terrorist groups never ever get their hands on one. I think since we developed it, and have been the only nation to ever use it, it is somewhat our responsibility to make sure that the horror of it is never unleashed again.

~Bang

I agree with that statement, but I think some here think that the only horrible things that happen are perpetrated by "them" but we aren't perfect And that is ok, but ignoring it won't fix the problem will it.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by The Showstopper


there is a pretty big difference, seein as how this particular incident ended ww2, but it probably wont matter, you probably have your mind made up like most hippies and think we shouldnt go to war, we should only drive vw vans or walk and not use anyone else and walk around in greatful dead stuff all day

You are right I am a hippy I drive an electric volkswagon and smoke pot and make my own "organic fruits" while l listen to grateful dead. :rolleyes:

BTW you didn't point out a big difference I don't see how that "difference" changes my point at all, but please keep embarrassing yourself.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Cdowwe
:doh: Vote for stupidest quote ever

Although, I will point out.

He aparantly had Douglas MacArthur agree with him. In the opinion of at least one individual who could be legitimatly considered an expert on the subject, neither The Bomb nor The Invasion were needed.

Now, I'll agree that Mac has not been Divinely graced with infallability, so we are discussing One Man's Opinion. Just pointing out that the "If we hadn't dropped the bomb, then we would've had to invade" isn't necessarily carved in stone.

-----

Now, me, I believe (based on my vast experience on the subject) that the President thought an invasion would've been necessary.

And I'll point out that it's possible to construct a scenario in which Japan would've been a whole lot worse off if it hadn't been for The Bomb.

(My "what if" scenario: If it hadn't been for The Bomb, we would've had to invade. If we'd had to invade, we would've had to stage out of China, Korea, or Russia. If we'd staged out of China or Russia, we would've had to invite their participation in the invasion. If we'd done that, then Japan would still be part of China or Russia today.)

[Bang]

agree with that statement, but I think some here think that the only horrible things that happen are perpetrated by "them" but we aren't perfect And that is ok, but ignoring it won't fix the problem will it.


Well, this is why I say, Liberty, as the only nation to have used it, and to have seen what it can do, it is our responsibility to make sure it is never ever used again. We must never ignore it.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Cdowwe


Hiroshima is how its spelled. We were at war with Japan by the way. The 911 hijackers were not at war with us....they just hate us.
911 hijackers are not at war with us? Then why do we have the war on terror?

btw

http://www.mahjqa.com/stuff/grammarnazi.gif

no one likes a grammar nazi

[Larry]

Originally posted by BlueTalon
It was significant and revealing about our Japanese enemy that they didn't surrender after the first atomic bomb. If they were that unwilling to surrender after being nuked once, imagine how unwilling to surrender they would have been if we'd have invaded.

I've read that the historical evidence suggests that, when we decided to use the second bomb, the Japanese still hadn't grasped the damage the first one had caused. (Reports from the scene, at that time, were, aparantly, still contradictory.)

I've read that the original plan was to wait a week after Hiroshima, before hitting Nagasaki, to allow the Japanese time to do damage assessment. (And to allow the fact that they'd lost to sink in.) However, the mission parameters for use of the weapons called for a daylight mission and clear skies. (One reason for this: The US wanted survivors to be able to swear that all this damage was caused by a single plane.)

And supposedly, the weather forcast for Nagasaki called for rain for a week or so, so the decision was made to move up the second date to take advantage of the weather.

So it can be argued that the decision to use the second weapon, was made based on a weather forcast.

[Taylor 36]

Originally posted by Liberty


People don't like to admit it, but I don't see a difference between nuking or firebombing entire cities, and terrorism.

Please, please, please, tell me you will never enter any faction of politics. It scares me to think how short a time this nation and, possibly, the world would have if someone of your shortsightedness and total ignorance and disregard for facts and world events ever held any sort of office of power! :rolleyes:

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Larry


I've read that the historical evidence suggests that, when we decided to use the second bomb, the Japanese still hadn't grasped the damage the first one had caused. (Reports from the scene, at that time, were, aparantly, still contradictory.)

I've read that the original plan was to wait a week after Hiroshima, before hitting Nagasaki, to allow the Japanese time to do damage assessment. (And to allow the fact that they'd lost to sink in.) However, the mission parameters for use of the weapons called for a daylight mission and clear skies. (One reason for this: The US wanted survivors to be able to swear that all this damage was caused by a single plane.)

And supposedly, the weather forcast for Nagasaki called for rain for a week or so, so the decision was made to move up the second date to take advantage of the weather.

So it can be argued that the decision to use the second weapon, was made based on a weather forcast.

That sounds plausible, and wouldn't surprise me a bit.

The Japanese I'm sure were able to make a somewhat accurate preliminary damage assessment, and communicate it fairly quickly to Tokyo. But I can see where they might have been incapable of fully acknowledging it until after the consistant reports didn't stop coming in. Talk about a paradigm shift!

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Taylor 36


Please, please, please, tell me you will never enter any faction of politics. It scares me to think how short a time this nation and, possibly, the world would have if someone of your shortsightedness and total ignorance and disregard for facts and world events ever held any sort of office of power! :rolleyes:

http://www.zambiatourism.com/travel/wildlife/images/HIPPO.jpg

[luckydevil]

Originally posted by Liberty


People don't like to admit it, but I don't see a difference between nuking or firebombing entire cities, and terrorism.

Oh, I agree

Deliberating targeting innocent people to achieve a political aim is terrorism. Hiroshima falls under that category. Military terrorism

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


Actually, they were at war with us. We just weren't at war with them.

Hey Shotgun, name any war in history that you think was justified. Then tell me if civilians were attacked. Oh, and by the way, do you happen to know if Hiroshima had any military significance? Or do you just think we targeted it for a nuke because there was nothing there but civilians?

Oh that's easy. The American Revolution, the Civil War, World War One, World War Two, The Aparthied Conflict, and the Palistinian Jihad.

It's not the war I have a problem with, it's the hypocrisy of saying that killing civillians is evil and wrong, then turning around and committing the single worst civilian bombing in history. And yes, we did it on purpose. To "break the spirit" of the Japanese army by killing their families. That was the expressed purpose for using the bomb.

To the board: Don't be so hard on Truman. He wasn't sure what the bomb would do when he ordered it's use, and vowed never to use it again after seeing it's devestation. He talked around it until his death, but always implied deep regret for using such a tactic...

[Destino]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC

I'd rather have one million Americans alive than save the life of 80,000 ignorant stubborn people at the cost of a single American. Earlier you were talking about "hell" and here you say something that I can't imagine is justifiable in any form of christianity. How do you justify your view on the worth of non-american lives and still hold belief in christian judgement?

I'm not trying to be an @ss but this view is expressed by many and I'd love to understand the logic behind it.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Destino
Earlier you were talking about "hell" and here you say something that I can't imagine is justifiable in any form of christianity. How do you justify your view on the value of non-american lives with the bible?


It's obvious isn't it? He worships the State. The State can do no wrong.

[luckydevil]

Originally posted by Liberty



It's obvious isn't it? He worships the State. The State can do no wrong.

In this case, the American government

Jingoism, got to love it

[Larry]

Originally posted by luckydevil
Jingoism, got to love it

Or else.

[Cdowwe]

Originally posted by Liberty

911 hijackers are not at war with us? Then why do we have the war on terror?

btw

http://www.mahjqa.com/stuff/grammarnazi.gif

no one likes a grammar nazi

We didnt have the war on terror when they attacked us. I was more making the point that the terrorists are an organized, sovereign nation that we were at war with. And the only reason I corrected him was to piss him off, pay back for a couple threads where he pissed a bunch of people off.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Destino
Earlier you were talking about "hell" and here you say something that I can't imagine is justifiable in any form of christianity. How do you justify your view on the worth of non-american lives and still hold belief in christian judgement?

I'm not trying to be an @ss but this view is expressed by many and I'd love to understand the logic behind it.

You're right, I did say "hell".

I believe my exact phrase was something similar to "gave them the chance to surrender or we were going to rain hell upon them"


I'm not sure where you get that I am a christian from that, but go ahead and operate under that premise if you'd like.

[stevenaa]

I don't think anyone here has said it is a "good" thing to have happened. The point is that given the situation, with the undeniable reality that we were going to have to conquer Japan to secure it's surrender, the bomb was the better way to go. I believe many more lives were saved then would have been lost in a land envasion that would of had to be accompanied by wholesale carpet bombing.

If a nation is on the attack and you need to kill civilians to repel that attack, so be it. Lives are lives. Whether we're killing civilians or military personel, the tragedy of death is no different.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Liberty



It's obvious isn't it? He worships the State. The State can do no wrong.



:rolleyes:

Did you fall and hit your head today?


I never said our government did no wrong. What I said was that I would readily nuke 80,000 japanese people to save one American life, rather than kill 1,000,000 Americans in an invasion that obviously (Due to the bomb) didn't need to happen.


Truman was more than just in doing this. And my question earlier was how it's not a horrible crime to fire bomb tokyo but to nuke hiroshima is such a war crime?


And you're going to find me hard pressed to find any simpathy for a nation that took the cowardly way into war with us, hoping to knock out our entire Pacific fleet in one fell swoop. They got what they deserved. Their natonal culture demanded that we overawe them with supreme force before they would submit in a war THEY started.

Or how else to you explain kamikaze pilots?

[Painkiller]

Well the obvious question here, is would or should Truman have done differently if he knew 60 years ago what we know now? The Cold War, terroism threat, etc. Would things have been better or worse if we hadn't have dropped the bomb?

I don't think things would have been better. Who knows how hard America would have been hit by an invasion of Japan, and how different our country might be now.

Which brings me to my next question. How far are we willing to go to make sure America exists? Would we be willing to turn much of the rest of the world into an ashtray if needs be to ensure our country's existence? If push came to absolute shove.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Liberty


People don't like to admit it, but I don't see a difference between nuking or firebombing entire cities, and terrorism.

That 's your 18 year old perspective coming through

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Yomar
To mourn the death of 200,000 civilians is liberal. You are a sad joke Sarge

That made my day coming from you

[Sarge]

Bound by the bomb
War official's choice: Nagasaki
Nagasaki's fate was sealed in a last-minute decision by Secretary of War Henry Stimson.

Before Stimson's intervention, the port city was not even on the original list of cities targeted for the atomic bomb. And it made the list only as a backup site.

In May 1945, Manhattan Project officials set up a committee to pick the best targets.

The committee examined the range of a fully loaded B-29, identified cities undamaged enough to serve as a measure of the bomb's destruction, examined weather conditions and considered the military value of potential targets.

By late July, the group had a list of four cities:

n Kokura, which had one of Japan's largest munitions plants.

n Hiroshima, a major staging area for Japan's army and navy and the site of several industrial plants.

n Niigata, a major port on the Sea of Japan with an oil refinery, a tanker terminal and an iron works.

n Kyoto, the former capital of Japan, a major industrial city with plants producing parts for machinery, aircraft and artillery.

Stimson wanted Kyoto off the list because of its religious and historical significance to Japan.

Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, wanted Kyoto to remain on the list because he believed it was a legitimate military target, and because its huge size made it a good gauge for the effects of an atomic blast.

Stimson overruled Groves, and Nagasaki was added in Kyoto's place.

Few details are available on how Nagasaki was picked, but the city contained two arms factories, a steel works and the massive Mitsubishi shipyards. One factory made some of the torpedoes used on Pearl Harbor.

Richard Rhodes' The Making Of the Atomic Bomb speculates that because Nagasaki was on the opposite side of a Kyushu mountain range from Kokura, military planners thought even if one city was fogged in, the other was likely to be clear.

Also, Nagasaki had not been bombed much - which meant the Allies could accurately measure the scope of the destruction.

For the first mission, Hiroshima would be the primary target, Kokura would be the second choice and Nagasaki the third.

On the second mission, Kokura would be the target, and Nagasaki would be the backup. Niigata was too far away to be a practical third choice.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Sarge
Bound by the bomb
War official's choice: Nagasaki
Nagasaki's fate was sealed in a last-minute decision by Secretary of War Henry Stimson.

Before Stimson's intervention, the port city was not even on the original list of cities targeted for the atomic bomb. And it made the list only as a backup site.

In May 1945, Manhattan Project officials set up a committee to pick the best targets.

The committee examined the range of a fully loaded B-29, identified cities undamaged enough to serve as a measure of the bomb's destruction, examined weather conditions and considered the military value of potential targets.

By late July, the group had a list of four cities:

n Kokura, which had one of Japan's largest munitions plants.

n Hiroshima, a major staging area for Japan's army and navy and the site of several industrial plants.

n Niigata, a major port on the Sea of Japan with an oil refinery, a tanker terminal and an iron works.

n Kyoto, the former capital of Japan, a major industrial city with plants producing parts for machinery, aircraft and artillery.

Stimson wanted Kyoto off the list because of its religious and historical significance to Japan.

Gen. Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, wanted Kyoto to remain on the list because he believed it was a legitimate military target, and because its huge size made it a good gauge for the effects of an atomic blast.

Stimson overruled Groves, and Nagasaki was added in Kyoto's place.

Few details are available on how Nagasaki was picked, but the city contained two arms factories, a steel works and the massive Mitsubishi shipyards. One factory made some of the torpedoes used on Pearl Harbor.

Richard Rhodes' The Making Of the Atomic Bomb speculates that because Nagasaki was on the opposite side of a Kyushu mountain range from Kokura, military planners thought even if one city was fogged in, the other was likely to be clear.

Also, Nagasaki had not been bombed much - which meant the Allies could accurately measure the scope of the destruction.

For the first mission, Hiroshima would be the primary target, Kokura would be the second choice and Nagasaki the third.

On the second mission, Kokura would be the target, and Nagasaki would be the backup. Niigata was too far away to be a practical third choice.

The targets were chosen for maximum civilian casualties. Tokyo was out because we had already firebombed it.

Guess how we know this? Because Truman said so himself.

Trying to revise history so that the US is always the good guys does nothing to improve the nation. It serves only to keep us from learning from our mistakes and reaching our true potential.

[PlayAction]

What is the purpose of mourning those killed in the two atomic bomb strikes? Is there any special day of mourning for the millions killed by the Germans and Japanese in the war? For that matter, do we mourn the tens of thousands killed in the Allied firebombing of Dresden? I may be mistaken but I believe more people died in those raids than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I believe the "mourning" is called for only because the bombs were atomic and the US dropped them. More self loathing I think.

Perhaps MacArthur was against the Atomic bombing because he wasn't consulted (he was, after all, and egotist). It is a fine point but Japan was not going to surrender before the dropping of the bombs. While they may have considered surrendering if the Russians entered the war they were still holding out for the divinity of the Emperor. I believe the Emperor was allowed to stay as a figurehead but was stripped of most of his real power. In any case, MacArthur's comments are strange considering that he was a strong advocate for the use of nuclear weapons against the Chinese during the Korean War.

Now that many years have passed, some folks have the luxury of claiming that those bombs were not necessary. At the time, the people who actually had to fight and suffer through the war were very thankful. We should use the anniversary of the bombing to thank those who fought (and those that died) in the War in defense of our country.

I'm biased. My father was in the invasion fleet - - he obviously had a different viewpoint on the issue than an 18yr old who doesn't know anything about the world yet.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


The targets were chosen for maximum civilian casualties. Tokyo was out because we had already firebombed it.

Guess how we know this? Because Truman said so himself.

Trying to revise history so that the US is always the good guys does nothing to improve the nation. It serves only to keep us from learning from our mistakes and reaching our true potential.

I guess through the fog of the rose colored glasses you missed teh "Arms factory" parts

[Cdowwe]

Originally posted by PlayAction
In any case, MacArthur's comments are strange considering that he was a strong advocate for the use of nuclear weapons against the Chinese during the Korean War.



Very good point

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Painkiller

Which brings me to my next question. How far are we willing to go to make sure America exists? Would we be willing to turn much of the rest of the world into an ashtray if needs be to ensure our country's existence? If push came to absolute shove.


Me personally?


YES.


Is it my preference?


NO.



World peace would be great. Ending poverty forever would be better (And probably the only way to world peace).

But if push came to shove, and I was in charge, I'd level every country to dust, if I had the means and it was necessary to save the lives of my fellow countrymen, including the ones that will roll their eyes and berate me for this post.

[visionary]

One thing that people have to take into consideration with the MacArther qoutes, is that he was giving them after the bombing and that he was supposedly not asked about the plans ahead of time.

So he already had a chip on his shoulder about it at that point, not to mention against Truman. So as much as I admire MacArther it seems pretty obvious that he was not exactly speaking in a bias free context.

It makes sense that he would criticize the move even if he would have agreed with it if asked ahead of the attack. Since it had already happened we will probably never know what he really felt or would have felt if the decision had been up to him.

(even he might not know, since his subconcious might very likely be telling him one thing, when he would have done something completely differently, and he may have even been unwittingly lying to himself too)

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Sarge


I guess through the fog of the rose colored glasses you missed teh "Arms factory" parts

I didn't miss anything. There were legitimate military targets in virtually EVERY Japanese city. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their civilian populations. You really should read Truman's memoirs and letters. His advisors specifically told him that military bombing would not stop the Japanese. Their "spirit" had to be broken.

It sounds like you just don't want to believe it. That is your peragative...

[Major Harris]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles
Terrorist: One who attacks civilians to achieve political or military goals.

Heroshima makes 9-11 look like a campfire...

the more this dude types the more ____________. :doh:

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Major Harris


the more this dude types the more ____________. :doh:

The more what? That is YOUR PRESIDENT's definition of terrorism, not mine. You want to blame someone for it, blame Bush, he said it.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles
Guess how we know this? Because Truman said so himself.


Quote, please?


(edit) And why should we believe your version of history, when Sarge went to the trouble of quoting from a book or article (which sounds quite plausible and convincing, by the way)?

[Major Harris]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


The more what? That is YOUR PRESIDENT's definition of terrorism, not mine. You want to blame someone for it, blame Bush, he said it.

after your call out thread on bang, and then your comparison of a non-provoked 911 terror attack to an attack that, while regrettable, did have a purpose, i just wonder if you really mean this stuff or if you're just trying to incite.

call 911 a campfire to a victims family.

and bush is YOUR president as much as he is mine.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Oh that's easy. The American Revolution, the Civil War, World War One, World War Two, The Aparthied Conflict, and the Palistinian Jihad.

It's not the war I have a problem with, it's the hypocrisy of saying that killing civillians is evil and wrong, then turning around and committing the single worst civilian bombing in history. And yes, we did it on purpose. To "break the spirit" of the Japanese army by killing their families. That was the expressed purpose for using the bomb.

To the board: Don't be so hard on Truman. He wasn't sure what the bomb would do when he ordered it's use, and vowed never to use it again after seeing it's devestation. He talked around it until his death, but always implied deep regret for using such a tactic...

I have a serious problem with you putting the American Revolution and Palistinian Jihad in the same category. But be that as it may...

Please note: we DIDN'T commit hypocrisy by "saying that killing civillians is evil and wrong, then turning around and committing the single worst civilian bombing in history."

Even if we grant that Hiroshima was a "civilian" bombing, which is being disputed elsewhere in this thread, you gotta get your timeline right. We used the bomb... and now over a half century later we are discussing the fact that killing civilians is bad. Awfully convenient for us, don't you think?

In case you haven't noticed, there has been a substantial paradigm shift between then and now. And that's not a bad thing. Now, we have a zero tolerance policy toward casualties. We know some people are going to get hit, but we'll never do another operation like the landing at Normandy or any of the island campaigns in the Pacific, where thousands, or tens of thousands of lives would be lost in a single day. The Afghanistan capaign is the only one in history I'm aware of where we were feeding the opposing side's civilians while the fighting was still going on. During this last campaign in Iraq, our soldiers were taking enemy sniper fire and chose not to respond, rather than shoot back at someone in a mosque.

We fight our wars now by the standards we have now. We fought our wars then by the standards we had then.

[Thiebear]

There is very little doubt that without the bomb we would have had to invade and lose 100,000+ soldiers easily.
This was also to Break the Japanese Military might which is still visible today.

Dr. Ted Rockwell said we would have dropped fire bombs if we didnt go in (Channel 9) now... and it would have been the same losses to their side and more to ours...

He said the Japanese people see the fire bombing and atomic bombing of little difference at his last conference with him.

Lots of false radiation claims...

Anyhow: I stand by the decision and like most wars wish it wouldnt have happened.. Then again I wish 56million people didnt have to die.. ie 6 million jews... 20+million Soviets etc. etc..

To make blanket claims without giving your alterior attack to include estimated deaths and future ramifications is as usefull as posting a picture of a hippo ;) .

[Spaceman Spiff]

Wow, took a lot to catch up.

Well, I've learned that apparently Liberty can use a dictionary and a thesaurus since he can't define terrorism for himself. I've learned that a lot of other posters on this thread think they know everything while others know nothing.

Anyway, I'll weigh in with the advice my dad gave me when I was getting picked on at the playground during the days of my youth. ;) I think it relates well to the topic at hand here. "They start it? You finish it."

And this thread, like most other political/historical threads that deal with war on this site continue to be........
http://www.richardmcotton.com/xmasstory/Dog_Chasing_Tail.jpg

[Larry]

I confess, this is the first time I've ever heard someone make the assertion that an invasion wouldn't have been necessary, and actually give credable support for the claim.

Although, I'll also say, a quote from MacArthur does strike me as a credable source.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Larry
I confess, this is the first time I've ever heard someone make the assertion that an invasion wouldn't have been necessary, and actually give credable support for the claim.

Although, I'll also say, a quote from MacArthur does strike me as a credable source.

Luckydevil quoted Norman Cousins quoting MacArthur as saying "the war might have ended weks earlier" if they'd have listened to him. Besides being rediculous on the face of it (there's no way the war was going to end weeks earlier than it did), why did MacArthur think that? Apparently, because he wanted the allies to acknowledge the Japanese emperor and leave him in place. That strikes me as being similar to advocating leaving Stalin in place, or leaving Osama in place. Eventually he did remain, but not until after he fell from godhood.

[Sarge]

August 05, 2005
60 Years Later
Considering Hiroshima.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

For 60 years the United States has agonized over its unleashing of the world’s first nuclear weapon on Hiroshima on August 6, 2005. President Harry Truman’s decision to explode an atomic bomb over an ostensible military target — the headquarters of the crack Japanese 2nd Army — led to well over 100,000 fatalities, the vast majority of them civilians.

Critics immediately argued that we should have first targeted the bomb on an uninhabited area as a warning for the Japanese militarists to capitulate. Did a democratic America really wish to live with the burden of being the only state that had used nuclear weapons against another?

Later generals Hap Arnold, Dwight Eisenhower, Curtis LeMay, Douglas Macarthur, and Admirals William Leahy and William Halsey all reportedly felt the bomb was unnecessary, being either militarily redundant or unnecessarily punitive to an essentially defeated populace.

Yet such opponents of the decision shied away from providing a rough estimate of how many more would have died in the aggregate — Americans, British, Australians, Asians, Japanese, and Russians — through conventional bombing, continuous fighting in the Pacific, amphibious invasion of the mainland, or the ongoing onslaught of the Red Army had the conflict not come to an abrupt halt nine days later and only after a second nuclear drop on Nagasaki.

Truman’s supporters countered that, in fact, a blockade and negotiations had not forced the Japanese generals to surrender unconditionally. In their view, a million American casualties and countless Japanese dead were adverted by not storming the Japanese mainland over the next year in the planned two-pronged assault on the mainland, dubbed Operation Coronet and Olympic.

For the immediate future there were only two bombs available. Planners thought that using one for demonstration purposes (assuming that it would have worked) might have left the Americans without enough of the new arsenal to shock and awe the Japanese government should it have ridden out the first attack and then become emboldened by a hiatus, and our inability to follow up the attacks.

As it was, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, General Tojo’s followers capitulated only through the intervention of the emperor. And it was not altogether clear even then that Japanese fanatics would not attack the Americans as they steamed into Tokyo Bay for the surrender ceremonies.

These are the debates that matured in the relative peace of the postwar era. But in August 1945 most Americans had a much different take on Hiroshima, a decision that cannot be fathomed without appreciation of the recently concluded Okinawa campaign (April 1-July 2) that had cost 50,000 American casualties and 200,000 Japanese and Okinawa dead. Okinawa saw the worst losses in the history of the U.S. Navy. Over 300 ships were damaged, more than 30 sunk, as about 5,000 sailors perished under a barrage of some 2,000 Kamikaze attacks.

And it was believed at least 10,000 more suicide planes were waiting on Kyushu and Honshu. Those who were asked to continue such fighting on the Japanese mainland — as we learn from the memoirs of Paul Fussell, William Manchester, and E. B. Sledge — were relieved at the idea of encountering a shell-shocked defeated enemy rather than a defiant Japanese nation in arms.

About a month after Okinawa was finally declared secure came Hiroshima. Americans of that age were more likely to wonder not that the bomb had been dropped too early, but perhaps too late in not avoiding the carnage on Okinawa — especially when by Spring 1945 there was optimism among the scientists in New Mexico that the successful completion of the bomb was not far away. My father, William Hanson, who flew 39 missions over Japan on a B-29, was troubled over the need for Okinawa — where his first cousin Victor Hanson was killed in the last hours of the battle for Sugar Loaf Hill — when the future bomb would have forced Japanese surrender without such terrible loss of life in 11th-hour infantry battles or even more horrific torching of the Japanese cities.

Hiroshima, then, was not the worst single-day loss of life in military history. The Tokyo fire raid on the night of March 9/10, five months earlier, was far worse, incinerating somewhere around 150,000 civilians, and burning out over 15 acres of the downtown. Indeed, “Little Boy,” the initial nuclear device that was dropped 60 years ago, was understood as the continuance of that policy of unrestricted bombing — its morality already decided by the ongoing attacks on the German and Japanese cities begun at least three years earlier.

Americans of the time hardly thought the Japanese populace to be entirely innocent. The Imperial Japanese army routinely butchered civilians abroad — some 10-15 million Chinese were eventually to perish — throughout the Pacific from the Philippines to Korea and Manchuria. Even by August 1945, the Japanese army was killing thousands of Asians each month. When earlier high-level bombing attacks with traditional explosives failed to cut off the fuel for this murderous military — industries were increasingly dispersed in smaller shops throughout civilian centers — Curtis LeMay unleashed napalm on the Japanese cities and eventually may have incinerated 500,000.

In some sense, Hiroshima and Nagasaki not only helped to cut short the week-long Soviet invasion of Japanese-held Manchuria (80,000 Japanese soldiers killed, over 8,000 Russian dead), but an even more ambitious incendiary campaign planned by Gen. Curtis LeMay. With the far shorter missions possible from planned new bases in Okinawa and his fleet vastly augmented by more B-29s and the transference from Europe of thousands of idle B-17s and B-24, the ‘mad bomber’ LeMay envisioned burning down the entire urban and industrial landscape of Japan. His opposition to Hiroshima was more likely on grounds that his own fleet of bombers could have achieved the same result in a few more weeks anyway.

Postwar generations argued over whether the two atomic bombs, the fire raids, or the August Soviet invasion of Manchuria — or all three combined — prompted Japan to capitulate, whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a stain on American democracy, or whether the atomic bombs were the last-gasp antidote to the plague of Japanese militarism that had led to millions of innocents butchered without much domestic opposition or criticism from the triumphalist Japanese people.

But our own generation has more recently once again grappled with Hiroshima, and so the debate rages on in the new age of terrorism and handheld weapons of mass destruction, brought home after an attack on our shores worse than Pearl Harbor — with more promised to come. Perhaps the horror of the suicide bombers of Japan does not seem so distant any more. Nor does the notion of an extreme perversion of an otherwise mainstream religion filling millions with hatred of a supposedly decadent West.

The truth, as we are reminded so often in this present conflict, is that usually in war there are no good alternatives, and leaders must select between a very bad and even worse choice. Hiroshima was the most awful option imaginable, but the other scenarios would have probably turned out even worse.

©2004 Victor Davis Hanson

[codeorama]

Just a public service announcement, there's a show on the history channel now and again later tonight (for those of us with tivo) that supposedly has some info regarding the millitary's opposition to Truman's decision. I'm tivoing the later showing.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


I have a serious problem with you putting the American Revolution and Palistinian Jihad in the same category. But be that as it may...

Please note: we DIDN'T commit hypocrisy by "saying that killing civillians is evil and wrong, then turning around and committing the single worst civilian bombing in history."

Even if we grant that Hiroshima was a "civilian" bombing, which is being disputed elsewhere in this thread, you gotta get your timeline right. We used the bomb... and now over a half century later we are discussing the fact that killing civilians is bad. Awfully convenient for us, don't you think?

In case you haven't noticed, there has been a substantial paradigm shift between then and now. And that's not a bad thing. Now, we have a zero tolerance policy toward casualties. We know some people are going to get hit, but we'll never do another operation like the landing at Normandy or any of the island campaigns in the Pacific, where thousands, or tens of thousands of lives would be lost in a single day. The Afghanistan capaign is the only one in history I'm aware of where we were feeding the opposing side's civilians while the fighting was still going on. During this last campaign in Iraq, our soldiers were taking enemy sniper fire and chose not to respond, rather than shoot back at someone in a mosque.

We fight our wars now by the standards we have now. We fought our wars then by the standards we had then.

Oh that's not true. PRIOR to the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States was a signatory state to the Geneva Convention. Nice try though.

Look, I'm glad we won. I believe the war was necessary for the betterment of the world. What I don't believe in is moral relativism. Killing civilians is wrong, and targeting them is more wrong. It does not matter whether we do it, or "they" do it. While most people on this board probably believe an American life to be more valuable than that of a non-American, I do not share that view. A human life is a human life.

Devaluing human life leads only to more killing. Our current future is one of perpetual war, primarily because of our devaluation of non-American lives. Yes it feels good to say "we were right, and if anyone else gets in our way we'll kill them too". But that's not the American way in my opinion...

[Skinsfan1311]

Originally posted by luckydevil


Because the use of the bombs was unnecessary

A war crime, plain and simple :doh:

[Renegade7]

That was sixty years ago. We dropped it, war ended, no need for an invasion. Why is it always "liberals" that want to "cry" about it. :rolleyes: I'm liberal, and I'm glad we dropped the bomb.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles
Oh that's not true. PRIOR to the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States was a signatory state to the Geneva Convention. Nice try though.

The Geneva Convention didn't mention anything about nukes. It appears you're still laboring under the impression that Hiroshima was targeted solely for its civilians. Or that we should have picked a target that had military significance and no civilians at all. You can think that, but you're in the distinct minority.


Look, I'm glad we won. I believe the war was necessary for the betterment of the world. What I don't believe in is moral relativism. Killing civilians is wrong, and targeting them is more wrong. It does not matter whether we do it, or "they" do it. While most people on this board probably believe an American life to be more valuable than that of a non-American, I do not share that view. A human life is a human life.

Devaluing human life leads only to more killing. Our current future is one of perpetual war, primarily because of our devaluation of non-American lives. Yes it feels good to say "we were right, and if anyone else gets in our way we'll kill them too". But that's not the American way in my opinion...

Is it your opinion that the American government should NOT look after American interests and American lives first?

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


The Geneva Convention didn't mention anything about nukes. It appears you're still laboring under the impression that Hiroshima was targeted solely for its civilians. Or that we should have picked a target that had military significance and no civilians at all. You can think that, but you're in the distinct minority.



Is it your opinion that the American government should NOT look after American interests and American lives first?

Wow. Outstanding spin. The issue was attacking civilians, not nukes. And yes, the geneva convention was quite clear on the issue of targeting civilians. Another nice try...

I am of he opinion that you can't safegaurd the American people by inciting other people to kill them. Our anti-everybody policies endanger us as a nation. What's worse, we have a problem that we can't kill our way out of, and we're trying to do exactly that.

[jpillian]

Lots of blustering here (as usual) about an issue that is of course not clear cut. The way I like to look at it as such:

For those justifying the use of the A-bomb on a city: Would you be able to make the same justification to the relative of someone who was killed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

For those hamstringing the decision to use the A-bomb: Would you be able to look a former Marine, who probably would have died in the alternative invasion, and tell him that's how it should have played out?

The bottomline is, it was a tragic event. There should be no celebration of it; but a sober reckoning of the horrible costs of war.

War is rarely a worthwhile endeavor. But when it is joined, we can only hope that the side that is better, not just stronger, ends up winning.

I think it's safe to say, even in this current age of post-modernist moral relativism, that the "better" side ended up winning WW2. And the A-Bomb was an important, climactic way to end the war. It probably was better than the alternative of invasion -- for both the Americans and the Japanese.

On another note: if we can't keep it civil about a discussion over THIS completely moot point... we really are a sad bunch of posters. :doh:

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by jpillian
Lots of blustering here (as usual) about an issue that is of course not clear cut. The way I like to look at it as such:

For those justifying the use of the A-bomb on a city: Would you be able to make the same justification to the relative of someone who was killed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki?

For those hamstringing the decision to use the A-bomb: Would you be able to look a former Marine, who probably would have died in the alternative invasion, and tell him that's how it should have played out?

The bottomline is, it was a tragic event. There should be no celebration of it; but a sober reckoning of the horrible costs of war.

War is rarely a worthwhile endeavor. But when it is joined, we can only hope that the side that is better, not just stronger, ends up winning.

I think it's safe to say, even in this current age of post-modernist moral relativism, that the "better" side ended up winning WW2. And the A-Bomb was an important, climactic way to end the war. It probably was better than the alternative of invasion -- for both the Americans and the Japanese.

On another note: if we can't keep it civil about a discussion over THIS completely moot point... we really are a sad bunch of posters. :doh:

Ah, playing on morality like its a violin. :doh:

Look, the way the Japanese fought to the death, they would've gone ten-fold to defend their homeland. It would've cost millions more lives, innocent as well, and the total destruction of that nation to finally win the war. The death of 100,000 or total annihilation of a very well respected and historic civilization. Do you believe Japan would be half the country it is today if we had burned it all down as opposed to taking out two cities?

It's hard to accept, I know, but easy to understand.

[jpillian]

Originally posted by Renegade7


Ah, playing on morality like its a violin. :doh:

Look, the way the Japanese fought to the death, they would've gone ten-fold to defend their homeland. It would've cost millions more lives, innocent as well, and the total destruction of that nation to finally win the war. The death of 100,000 or total annihilation of a very well respected and historic civilization. Do you believe Japan would be half the country it is today if we had burned it all down as opposed to taking out two cities?

It's hard to accept, I know, but easy to understand.

Eh?

I think you need to re-read my post, my friend.

I'm just proposing a bit of moderation and perspective, that's it.

Reference my concluding opinion, and I think you'd see we agree.

[Renegade7]

Originally posted by jpillian


Eh?

I think you need to re-read my post, my friend.

I'm just proposing a bit of moderation and perspective, that's it.

Reference my concluding opinion, and I think you'd see we agree.

:)

[Park City Skins]

As little aside here. I believe, ( and I could be wrong of course), that the protection of civilians was part of the4th Geneveva convention that was passed in 1949. I can't be totally sure, but I believe that was the first time that had been done.
Previous conventions protected civilians helping the injured and such.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


The more what? That is YOUR PRESIDENT's definition of terrorism, not mine. You want to blame someone for it, blame Bush, he said it.

:doh: This is what I'm tired of. He's everyones president. Just cause people didn't vote for him doesn't mean they have to be flippant with that smart alec "he's not my president" remark. We're Americans here, buck up, the other guy lost, get over it. It's not changing until 2008.

The blatant bitterness and disrespect spewed at the man in office is one of the things that frightens me about the way this country is headed. I know its a cliche term, but united we stand, divided we fall. And I do believe right now is a time where people who didn't get their way in the previous elections need to dry their eyes and show a little bit of support and a little bit of respect to the guy in office.

I know someone will come back and say "well, you're just saying that cause you voted for Bush and you're happy he won" Yeah, i did vote for Bush, and what? But if the other guy got into office, I'd support him, because no matter how you cut it, he's an American too and when you get right down to it he would want whats best for this country when it comes to the war on terrorism.

I'm only 23 but I've seen enough elections to know that every 4 years they get more bitter and venemous and as a result I believe thats why our country is in this state that it's in. It's sad when people are so self righteous that they would like to see Bush fail rather than do some good so their party can get into office in 2008. :rant:

[Bang]

Consider this.
I think most of us here agree that it's a terrible thing to have happened, but it did.Some of us are more gung ho than others, BUT, the one thing we all have now that they didn't have then is the gift of hindsight.
We know the final result of the bombing. We know what the world has been like since. we know all of these things. In 1945, no one did.

I see lines like this

Trying to revise history so that the US is always the good guys does nothing to improve the nation. It serves only to keep us from learning from our mistakes and reaching our true potential.
and it is so full of self rigteous ignorance that it's not even funny.
I don't understand why there have been folks on this thread who have assumed we never learned from dropping the bomb.

Look, we haven't dropped it since, have we? we've fought wars since, even lost one, and didn't use it. We went right to the brink in 61, and didn't use it. We've fought wars vs the commies, right in the face of them, and neither side used them. We fought in Korea a scant five years later, and didn't use it.
it's not even an option unless someone else fires one first. That is a policy that is written practically in stone.
We have been responsible with it. We have learned from the one time it was used. Unfortunately the nature of the world means you must protect yourself. Nukes offer a fine deterrence, but an enemy would REALLY REALLY REALLY have to do something awful for us to even consider using one again. Like use one first.

So relax. Lesson learned.

it's useless to sit and try to judge the decisions made in WW2. The men who fought that war were faced with something never before seen and never since, a war on a global scale, wholesale genocides, determined, well equipped and trained enemies who were bent purely on world dominance and their ideas of racial purity.
to sit back in the cushy, cozy, comfy lifestyle that was provided for us by those who fought that war, and point a finger of judgement is very shortsighted, and entirely self absorbed. To pretend to assert modern ideals into a time when the entire world was at war... it's extremely arrogant to do.
Put yourself in the shoes of Truman.. having to decide to kill 800,000 civilians, or a million of his own soldiers invading. (Not to mention the horrifying civilian losses that would result from an invasion anyway.) put yourself in the shoes of the Marine who had survived island hopping across the pacific, watching most likely everyone he knew get killed. (Allied losses in the pacific campaign were horrifying.) put yourself in the shoes of the man who had survived the frozen war in Europe, only to find you would have to invade Japan.. remember,, there was no One Year Tour of Duty. You fought until the war was over, you were dead, or too maimed to fight anymore.
Think like they did for a minute before you think like you do now, what with all your current knowledge. And also, bear in mind,, the atomic scientists from Germany who developed the thing? We didn't get them all. The Soviets got their hands on a bunch of them as well, and were developing their own bomb. Stalin with a bomb.
How comforting is that?
Before you call anyone a 'revisionist" try to think in terms of the world they were in. If they had a time machine, and could see the world as it is now, would they still have done it? If they had not, and we invaded Japan, how different would the world be? Would it be any better?

~Bang

[DjTj]

Originally posted by Sarge
I know libs will spend the weekend in mourning, but I say "Good on ya Harry"


I imagine the tone of this thread would have been a lot friendlier if it hadn't started with this comment.

The day the bomb dropped should be a day of mourning, because the deaths of hundreds of thousands should not be something to celebrate. Like D-Day, it is a day that is commemorated, not celebrated.

For the end of the war with the Japanese, our day of celebration should be V-J Day, for that day marked the true end of the killing on both sides.

There is little use, I think, in bickering about the difficult decisions made by men that can no longer argue back. In 1945, it was very clear when it was time to mourn and when it was time to celebrate.

This is an image of tragedy:
http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/nattrans/ntimages/hiroshima.jpg
August 6, 1945

This is an image of celebration:
http://www.gallerym.com/images/work/big/eisenstaedt_alfred_VJ%20Day%20The%20Kiss%201945_L. jpg
August 14, 1945

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Bang
Consider this.
I think most of us here agree that it's a terrible thing to have happened, but it did.Some of us are more gung ho than others, BUT, the one thing we all have now that they didn't have then is the gift of hindsight.
We know the final result of the bombing. We know what the world has been like since. we know all of these things. In 1945, no one did.

I see lines like this

and it is so full of self rigteous ignorance that it's not even funny.
I don't understand why there have been folks on this thread who have assumed we never learned from dropping the bomb.

Look, we haven't dropped it since, have we? we've fought wars since, even lost one, and didn't use it. We went right to the brink in 61, and didn't use it. We've fought wars vs the commies, right in the face of them, and neither side used them. We fought in Korea a scant five years later, and didn't use it.
it's not even an option unless someone else fires one first. That is a policy that is written practically in stone.
We have been responsible with it. We have learned from the one time it was used. Unfortunately the nature of the world means you must protect yourself. Nukes offer a fine deterrence, but an enemy would REALLY REALLY REALLY have to do something awful for us to even consider using one again. Like use one first.

So relax. Lesson learned.

it's useless to sit and try to judge the decisions made in WW2. The men who fought that war were faced with something never before seen and never since, a war on a global scale, wholesale genocides, determined, well equipped and trained enemies who were bent purely on world dominance and their ideas of racial purity.
to sit back in the cushy, cozy, comfy lifestyle that was provided for us by those who fought that war, and point a finger of judgement is very shortsighted, and entirely self absorbed. To pretend to assert modern ideals into a time when the entire world was at war... it's extremely arrogant to do.
Put yourself in the shoes of Truman.. put yourself in the shoes of the Marine who had survived island hopping across the pacific, watching most likely everyone he knew get killed. (Allied losses in the pacific campaign were horrifying.) put yourself in the shoes of the man who had survived the frozen war in Europe, only to find you would have to invade Japan..
Think like they do for a minute before you think like you do now, what with all your current knowledge. And also, bear in mind,, the atomic scientists from Germany who developed the thing? We didn't get them all. The Soviets got their hands on a bunch of them as well, and were developing their own bomb. Stalin with a bomb.
How comforting is that?
Before you call anyone a 'revisionist" try to think in terms of the world they were in. If they had a time machine, and could see the world as it is now, would they still have done it? If they had not, and we invaded Japan, how different would the world be? Would it be any better?

~Bang

Self righteous ignorance? You're kidding right?

Americans can't hardly stand the sight of each other, much less miriad of peoples we share the with. We are apethetic to their humanity, yet DEMAND that they respect ours. We have killed 25,000 Iraqi civilians. Eight times 9-11. And I hear little sympathy for their dead, and much pining for ours.

It's easy for us to disregard the lives of others, since most of us have never lived in a war zone. Even our soldiers have a safe home to return to.

I see people as people. The color, country, age, sex, and faiths are all the same in my eyes. If we disregard the lives of everyone not American, and as a result trample them, we will be at war forever.

It is you that is self righteus to believe in your own supirior value. You are a flesh and blood human, no better then those who you'd see killed in the name of "saving" American lives.

For these reasons, this issue of Hiroshima is more valid now than ever. You may choose to wave the flag and beat your chest. That is your peragative as an American. But it will not solve the current crisis, and indeed may exaserbate the problem.

[Destino]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC


You're right, I did say "hell".

I believe my exact phrase was something similar to "gave them the chance to surrender or we were going to rain hell upon them"


I'm not sure where you get that I am a christian from that, but go ahead and operate under that premise if you'd like.
actually my assumption was based on your taking issue with the term "rot in hell"

Quoted...
Originally posted by MrSilverMaC


Yeah, rot in hell for dropping the bomb on a country that sneak attacked us.



Rot in hell for telling them to surrender or we are going to rain hell on you.



Rot in hell for saving 1,000,000 American lives, one of which was my Grandfather, before my mother was born.


How bout your family?



Yeah, rot in hell:rolleyes: :doh:

Sorry for confusing you with a Christian. If anyone would like to answe my question though feel free.

[Destino]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


Is it your opinion that the American government should NOT look after American interests and American lives first? You ducked a very valid point, that being moral relativism at play here. Right wingers love this expression when bashing stupid liberals over the head for their "everybody is right" nonsense. Yet here we see a different conclusion using the same method: "The US is always right"

Is it wrong to target civilians to achieve a political goal?

Yes? No? Maybe? Not when we kill them but yes when they kill us?

Moral relativism can get confusing. I find it easier to say killing civilains is bad and leave it at that. It is not worthy of celebration at all ever. Civilians almost never meet my standards of "deserving it." But leaders during a very bitter period decided to do a it for what I believe to be the right reasons. To look back and judge it now, absent the emotions experienced at the time is foolish.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Destino

actually my assumption was based on your taking issue with the term "rot in hell"

Quoted...

Sorry for confusing you with a Christian. If anyone would like to answe my question though feel free.

I did take issue with the "rot in hell" comment, but it had nothing to do with my religious beliefs, more with my disgust for the person and comment of condemning a man responsible for, in the grand scheme of things, saving MORE lives than he took.

My repeated use of "rot in hell" was, I thought, obviously sarcastic, and was intended as such.


As for your question, I don't remember it as I replied to your direct reference to me earlier.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Destino
You ducked a very valid point, that being moral relativism at play here. Right wingers love this expression when bashing stupid liberals over the head for their "everybody is right" nonsense. Yet here we see a different conclusion using the same method: "The US is always right"

Is it wrong to target civilians to achieve a political goal?

Yes? No? Maybe? Not when we kill them but yes when they kill us?

Moral relativism can get confusing. I find it easier to say killing civilains is bad and leave it at that. It is not worthy of celebration at all ever. Civilians almost never meet my standards of "deserving it." But leaders during a very bitter period decided to do a it for what I believe to be the right reasons. To look back and judge it now, absent the emotions experienced at the time is foolish.

I have a general question for you Destino, when is a civilian no longer a civilian?

By this I mean at what point do they cross the line to a enemy combatant?


This is directed at Destino, but obvioulsy I would like anyone who wishes to, to answer this.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Destino
You ducked a very valid point, that being moral relativism at play here. Right wingers love this expression when bashing stupid liberals over the head for their "everybody is right" nonsense. Yet here we see a different conclusion using the same method: "The US is always right"

Is it wrong to target civilians to achieve a political goal?

Yes? No? Maybe? Not when we kill them but yes when they kill us?

Moral relativism can get confusing. I find it easier to say killing civilains is bad and leave it at that. It is not worthy of celebration at all ever. Civilians almost never meet my standards of "deserving it." But leaders during a very bitter period decided to do a it for what I believe to be the right reasons. To look back and judge it now, absent the emotions experienced at the time is foolish.

Well, someone was listening! That is exactly where I was trying to go, minus the party bashing. :cheers:

The sooner we start seeing non-Americans as human beings first, and nationalities/races/alternate faiths second, the sooner we get out of this mess.

That John Wayne attitude works great in movies, but consider that we are more than half way to 9-11 in terms of troop casualties (1700). In doing so we have taken an isolated secular dictatorship and turned it into an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist factory. All because we failed to see the Iraqis as people. We saw thier home as merely an objective to be achieved. The parallels to Hiroshima are blatantly obvious. It is our ATTITUDE towards others that is at issue here. Not our means to fight...

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC


I have a general question for you Destino, when is a civilian no longer a civilian?

By this I mean at what point do they cross the line to a enemy combatant?


This is directed at Destino, but obvioulsy I would like anyone who wishes to, to answer this.

I really like the subtle implication here. The infamous "they" could all be the enemy.

Let me ask you this question: the 9-11 hijackers had 3 targets. Two of them, the White House and Pentagon were military targets. Does that mean that the terrorists were justified in attacking them?

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


I really like the subtle implication here. The infamous "they" could all be the enemy.

Let me ask you this question: the 9-11 hijackers had 3 targets. Two of them, the White House and Pentagon were military targets. Does that mean that the terrorists were justified in attacking them?



And I really like how you tried to dodge my question.

How bout you answer it instead of asking one in return?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Self righteous ignorance? You're kidding right?

Americans can't hardly stand the sight of each other, much less miriad of peoples we share the with. We are apethetic to their humanity, yet DEMAND that they respect ours. We have killed 25,000 Iraqi civilians. Eight times 9-11. And I hear little sympathy for their dead, and much pining for ours.

It's easy for us to disregard the lives of others, since most of us have never lived in a war zone. Even our soldiers have a safe home to return to.

I see people as people. The color, country, age, sex, and faiths are all the same in my eyes. If we disregard the lives of everyone not American, and as a result trample them, we will be at war forever.

It is you that is self righteus to believe in your own supirior value. You are a flesh and blood human, no better then those who you'd see killed in the name of "saving" American lives.

For these reasons, this issue of Hiroshima is more valid now than ever. You may choose to wave the flag and beat your chest. That is your peragative as an American. But it will not solve the current crisis, and indeed may exaserbate the problem.

By some estimates Sadam was responsible for the deaths of some five MILLION of your fellow humans lives. This doesent seem to faze you though. Nor does the fact that he had more innocent Iraqis killed on purpose than we have by accident because we do NOT target civilians. How many more would Saddam have killed if he remained in power? How many more innocent Iraqis had to be raped and tourtured by his sons?

Thank god we did what we did becaouse not only did we remove a major supporter of terrorism we removed a mass murderer of historic proportions.

Frankly, I find your arguments to be simple minded at best and full of self loathing as an american. Don't tell me that "We are apethetic to their humanity" when it is you who is apathetic to those Saddam killed and brutalized, and the future generations who would have suffered under him or the rule of his sons.

[BlueTalon]

He said:

Look, I'm glad we won. I believe the war was necessary for the betterment of the world. What I don't believe in is moral relativism. Killing civilians is wrong, and targeting them is more wrong. It does not matter whether we do it, or "they" do it. While most people on this board probably believe an American life to be more valuable than that of a non-American, I do not share that view. A human life is a human life.
Devaluing human life leads only to more killing. Our current future is one of perpetual war, primarily because of our devaluation of non-American lives. Yes it feels good to say "we were right, and if anyone else gets in our way we'll kill them too". But that's not the American way in my opinion...

Then I said:

Is it your opinion that the American government should NOT look after American interests and American lives first?

Then you said:

Originally posted by Destino
You ducked a very valid point, that being moral relativism at play here. Right wingers love this expression when bashing stupid liberals over the head for their "everybody is right" nonsense. Yet here we see a different conclusion using the same method: "The US is always right"

Is it wrong to target civilians to achieve a political goal?

Yes? No? Maybe? Not when we kill them but yes when they kill us?

Moral relativism can get confusing. I find it easier to say killing civilains is bad and leave it at that. It is not worthy of celebration at all ever. Civilians almost never meet my standards of "deserving it." But leaders during a very bitter period decided to do a it for what I believe to be the right reasons. To look back and judge it now, absent the emotions experienced at the time is foolish.

What point did I duck? He said, "Yes it feels good to say "we were right, and if anyone else gets in our way we'll kill them too" and I don't know what the heck he's talking about. I've never heard anyone say anything close to that.

If there are people drowning in a pool, I'm not going to ask them their nationality before I pull them out. But when making policy decisions, its the job of the US government to look out for American lives and American interests first.

Actually, it seems you ducked my very valid point, by responding to my post without answering the question. Let's try it again.
Is it your opinion that the American government should NOT look after American interests and American lives first?

[Mad Mike]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles
we have taken an isolated secular dictatorship and turned it into an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist factory. All because we failed to see the Iraqis as people. We saw thier home as merely an objective to be achieved. The parallels to Hiroshima are blatantly obvious. It is our ATTITUDE towards others that is at issue here. Not our means to fight...

What a load of crap. Saddam had long ago turned Iraq into a training camp for terrorists and for years proudly paid money to the families of sucide bombers. The three most wanted terrorists in the world before bin Ladden made his mark, were all guests of Saddam. Oh yeah, all was right with the world before us evil americans invaded That peaceloving secular nation. :doh:

And those Islamic terrorists in Iraq now?... They are coming from Syria and Iran. The Iraqis themselves, by a factor of 100 to 1 are trying to build a peaceful and prosperous nation for themselves. I find it interesting that you ignore these facts. Not particularly bright, but interesting none the less.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Mad Mike


By some estimates Sadam was responsible for the deaths of some five MILLION of your fellow humans lives. This doesent seem to faze you though. Nor does the fact that he had more innocent Iraqis killed on purpose than we have by accident because we do NOT target civilians. How many more would Saddam have killed if he remained in power? How many more innocent Iraqis had to be raped and tourtured by his sons?

Thank god we did what we did becaouse not only did we remove a major supporter of terrorism we removed a mass murderer of historic proportions.

Frankly, I find your arguments to be simple minded at best and full of self loathing as an american. Don't tell me that "We are apethetic to their humanity" when it is you who is apathetic to those Saddam killed and brutalized, and the future generations who would have suffered under him or the rule of his sons.

Five million? Find me that. 100,000 or so Kurds, and another 20,000 of his citizens. No way he killed another 4.8 million in the war with Iran.

But that's not the point. He didn't attack us. And, many more Iraqis will die in the resulting civil war after the US pulls out.

I love the self loathing American part. That's my favorite. If you don't want to kill people needlessly, you must hate America. You must have your TV locked on the Fox News Channel.

Now. The Saudis have been brutalizing their own citizens for years. YOUR president was holding the leader of that mess by the hand in the White House rose garden. So spare me your diatribe about how you actually care about Arab human rights abuses. You don't. You want blood for 9-11 and the Iraq war provided it.

Saddam did not support terrorism against the united states. As hard as the Right has tried, they have produced ZERO hard evidence of this. Nice try though....

[PokerPacker]

http://www.gapingmaws.com/Hippos/B1502.jpg

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Mad Mike


What a load of crap. Saddam had long ago turned Iraq into a training camp for terrorists and for years proudly paid money to the families of sucide bombers. The three most wanted terrorists in the world before bin Ladden made his mark, were all guests of Saddam. Oh yeah, all was right with the world before us evil americans invaded That peaceloving secular nation. :doh:

And those Islamic terrorists in Iraq now?... They are coming from Syria and Iran. The Iraqis themselves, by a factor of 100 to 1 are trying to build a peaceful and prosperous nation for themselves. I find it interesting that you ignore these facts. Not particularly bright, but interesting none the less.

Load of crap? What country were 15 of the 19 hijackers from? Saudi Arabia. What country is the Bush administration in bed with? Saudi Arabia. What family does the Bush administration have a 20 year relationship with? The Bin Ladens. Your boy doesn't seem to care about the people who were ACTUALLY responsible for the attacks, and it seems neither do you.

As for suicide bombers, they were in Israel not America. And he paid their families after the fact.

[luckydevil]

Just saw the history channel special Code. Good Stuff

It’s truly amazing how conservatism has evolved in this country. During the time period the leading critics of Truman's decision were conservatives.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by luckydevil
Just saw the history channel special Code. Good Stuff

It’s truly amazing how conservatism has evolved in this country. During the time period the leading critics of Truman's decision were conservatives.

I think party affiliation may have had something to do with that.

Similar to conservative criticsm of Kosovo (although I supproted that action for fairly obvious reasons which long time posters on this board will know)

Which brings me to ask why doesn't Shotgun cricize the decision to bomb Serbia and Kosovo into oblivion, costing that region billions of dollars, and which will tak 40+ years to repair (Washington Post headline at the end of the Kosovo War)

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan


I think party affiliation may have had something to do with that.

Similar to conservative criticsm of Kosovo (although I supproted that action for fairly obvious reasons which long time posters on this board will know)

Which brings me to ask why doesn't Shotgun cricize the decision to bomb Serbia and Kosovo into oblivion, costing that region billions of dollars, and which will tak 40+ years to repair (Washington Post headline at the end of the Kosovo War)

No one brought it up. What's more interesting is that you've already assumed my position will be along party lines. I have no party affiliation, as I am disgusted with the concept of partisanship.

And we did not bomb Serbia and Kosovo to oblivion. That implies we carpet bombed civilian populations, which we did not.

[Taylor 36]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


The targets were chosen for maximum civilian casualties. Tokyo was out because we had already firebombed it.

Guess how we know this? Because Truman said so himself.

Trying to revise history so that the US is always the good guys does nothing to improve the nation. It serves only to keep us from learning from our mistakes and reaching our true potential.

A Link? A Quote? Any proof???

Of course not, because it is so pathetically ridicules. The US has never selected targets to increase civilian casualties. And Truman never said anything to the contrary.

BTW, my father, who happens to be the second highest ranking weapons officers in the Navy and a US Military History Grad, laughed in disgust with how off base your comments are.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Taylor 36


A Link? A Quote? Any proof???

Of course not, because it is so pathetically ridicules. The US has never selected targets to increase civilian casualties. And Truman never said anything to the contrary.

BTW, my father, who happens to be the second highest ranking weapons officers in the Navy and a US Military History Grad, laughed in disgust with how off base your comments are.

Open wide, and prepare to taste your own shoe leather...


8/9/45 Letter to Senator Richard Russell:

[In response to Sen. Russell's wish that Japan be hit with more atomic and conventional bombing:]

"I know that Japan is a terribly cruel and uncivilized nation in warfare but I can't bring myself to believe that, because they are beasts, we should ourselves act in the same manner.

"For myself, I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation and, for your information, I am not going to do it until it is absolutely necessary... "

More on the subject of the Japanese people:



"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true." (Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, material quoted from pg. 563).

And as I posted earlier in this thread, having done it he immediatly regretted the act...



[8/10/45: Having received reports and photographs of the effects of the Hiroshima bomb, Truman ordered a halt to further atomic bombings. Sec. of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary on the 10th, "Truman said he had given orders to stop atomic bombing. He said the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like the idea of killing, as he said, 'all those kids'."

I can already hear the denials...

[Bang]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Self righteous ignorance? You're kidding right?

Americans can't hardly stand the sight of each other, much less miriad of peoples we share the with. We are apethetic to their humanity, yet DEMAND that they respect ours. We have killed 25,000 Iraqi civilians. Eight times 9-11. And I hear little sympathy for their dead, and much pining for ours.

It's easy for us to disregard the lives of others, since most of us have never lived in a war zone. Even our soldiers have a safe home to return to.

I see people as people. The color, country, age, sex, and faiths are all the same in my eyes. If we disregard the lives of everyone not American, and as a result trample them, we will be at war forever.

It is you that is self righteus to believe in your own supirior value. You are a flesh and blood human, no better then those who you'd see killed in the name of "saving" American lives.

For these reasons, this issue of Hiroshima is more valid now than ever. You may choose to wave the flag and beat your chest. That is your peragative as an American. But it will not solve the current crisis, and indeed may exaserbate the problem.


No, I'm not kidding.
Self righteous ignorance.
This thread is about the atomic bomb, not Iraq. This thread is about decisions made in a different time, not Saudi Arabia.

I tried in my last post to bring you back to that point, but you'd prefer to use the pulpit to run off at what you believe based on 65 years of hindsight and historic reflection.
I went to great lengths to ask you to try to think outside of your own modern paradigm to try to think in terms of 1945 and what the people of that time lived thru.
But, instead, you'd rather mock, and drag up all the things this thread isn't about.

You pretend to know more than the people who lived thru it, due to your overhwleming advantage of knowing what has happened since.
You say things along the lines of "all those people I'd see killed in the name of "saving" American lives" yet you totally ignore my previous posts saying that dropping the atomic bomb was one of the worst things to ever happen in the recorded history of man.
You specifically paint me as a flag waving chest beater, which I am not. You allude to this as not helping to 'solve our current crisis and indeed exaserbate the problem" yet you totally ignore the fact that no one has yet even brought UP the thought of using a nuke as a solution to our current crisis, other than to respond to a nuke set off by our enemy. The problem discussed here is the use of NUKES, not soldiers. And the fact we haven't used a nuke even after 9-11 when everyone in this country was pissed off and filled with bloodlust should prove to you that the people who are in charge of the nuke do in fact see it as the LAST OPTION. What "problem" with that is there? You can't pretend they don't exist,,you can't destroy them. The cat is out of the bag, nukes are a reality.

You claim we haven't 'learned anything' yet you totally ignore the numbers of times since Hiroshima that we have NOT used the nuke. You also totally ignore the numbers of times in this single thread alone that I have pointed out our relative responsibility to the Nuclear Weapon.
You take the ultimate assumption, and decide I, and many others here, just don't care about other people. You say it's easy for us, since we don't live in a war zone. (Yes we do, by the way. Or maybe you haven't noticed the machine gun vehicles as you drive down the GW parkway, or the anti-aircraft batteries on rooftops around DC.)
And this...

It is you that is self righteus to believe in your own supirior value. You are a flesh and blood human, no better then those who you'd see killed in the name of "saving" American lives goes against every single thing I've said in this thread. You tell me I'm self righteous by trying to think in terms of 1945. I've never said "the japs had it comin'", I never said they asked for it, I said that the history of it says that the decision came down to invasion, or bomb. They chose bomb, and in fact, it did do exactly what they had hoped it would. Brought a swift end to the war without an invasion.
I haven't agreed or disagreed with the decision. I've seen it for what it was, an attempt to end the single most bloody conflict this world has ever known. In my posts I have simply tried to put forth the thinking of the times to make their case. I've agreed it was a horrible thing, and I've agreed that in many eyes of the times, it was justified.
You didn't take the time to read before firing back. You shot without listening. It's good you don't have YOUR finger on the button, eh?

So far it seems to me you like to pop off at the mouth, but think the second half of debate is not worthwhile, namely the listening part. You're convinced your right, you don'thave to read the opposiung viewpoint for more than a few sentences before you have it all figured out.
Here's the cliff's notes version: Bang think the dropping of the bomb was one of the worst things that has ever happened on this world. Bang thinks that we have been duly shocked into what it does to the point that we have never used it again. Bang thinks that given the circumstance of the times, it's not too difficult to see why they dropped it. Bang thinks that hindsight gives us a luxury of being able to debate this, something they didn't have. Bang thinks that to intelligently debate this, you have to somehat remove yourself from the lessons history has taught, and try to put yourself in their shoes. Bang doesn't think that means you automatically will agree with it, but that it will give you a better perspective from which to debate.
That's pretty much it. Is that self righteous?

Friday, you took a nice potshot at me personally, even calling me out by my name, and now you're going to sit in here and point your finger at me again without bothering to understand what has been said to you.

If that isn't self righteous ignorance, i don't know what is.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Taylor 36


A Link? A Quote? Any proof???

Of course not, because it is so pathetically ridicules. The US has never selected targets to increase civilian casualties. And Truman never said anything to the contrary.

BTW, my father, who happens to be the second highest ranking weapons officers in the Navy and a US Military History Grad, laughed in disgust with how off base your comments are.

The Allies (and obviously the Axis too) did pick targets to inflict massive civillians casualties and therefore weaken morale, it happened early in the war and late in the war with the firebombing of Dresden.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Liberty


The Allies (and obviously the Axis too) did pick targets to inflict massive civillians casualties and therefore weaken morale, it happened early in the war and late in the war with the firebombing of Dresden.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

From that article:

Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany - the pre-war population was 630,000 - which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.

Until the advent of precision guided munitions, any bombing mission meant civilian casualties, often massive civilian casualties. According to your post, Dresden was targeted because of its civilian population as a moral buster. Yet in the article to which you referred us, it appears that there were legitimate military reasons for attacking Dresden.

Do you deny that there were legitimate military reasons for attacking Dresden?

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Liberty


The Allies (and obviously the Axis too) did pick targets to inflict massive civillians casualties and therefore weaken morale, it happened early in the war and late in the war with the firebombing of Dresden.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWdresden.htm

Thank you Liberty..

Now explain to me (people that said the Abomb was wrong)
how firebombing would have been better. I already quoted the scientist that explained the firebombing would have been 5x worse on the Japanese side and worse on our side due to the ships/crewmembers needed to be in the area.

Again, if your going to say it was wrong due to 126k? lives lost to the bomb.. Acknowldege the 2 other plans and how many people would have been lost.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Thiebear


Thank you Liberty..

Now explain to me (people that said the Abomb was wrong)
how firebombing would have been better. I already quoted the scientist that explained the firebombing would have been 5x worse on the Japanese side and worse on our side due to the ships/crewmembers needed to be in the area.

Again, if your going to say it was wrong due to 126k? lives lost to the bomb.. Acknowldege the 2 other plans and how many people would have been lost.

I said it was terrorism I didn't say one from was better than the other Thiebear.

[CrabR]

Originally posted by Larry
And supposedly, the weather forcast for Nagasaki called for rain for a week or so, so the decision was made to move up the second date to take advantage of the weather.
this is highly unlikely as the Primary Target was Kokura not Nagasaki


Originally posted by stevenaa
with the undeniable reality that we were going to have to conquer Japan to secure it's surrender

The bomb was not needed, we had broken their code and knew they had put out peace feelers to the USSR. Their main condition was keeping the Emperor. We told them only Unconditionally surrender at Potsdamn, yet we let them keep their emperor in the end.

The USSR entry into the War broke the Japanese military spirit more than the bomb, and I also think we dropped it to end the war quickly before Russia could gain any "spoils"


Originally posted by BlueTalon
Even if we grant that Hiroshima was a "civilian" bombing, which is being disputed elsewhere in this thread,

nothing to dispute it was a civilian bombing, Groves was looking for maximum bomb effect not military targets, that is why the cites were chosen.

The criteria used to chose the targets:
1-show off the bomb's power to the maximum effect
2-making the greatest impression possible on the Japanese
3-targets would be undamaged by conventional bombing
4-geographical layouts that would maximize damage from the bomb's blast wave

The Air Force were also ordered not to firebomb these cities



Originally posted by BlueTalon
Do you deny that there were legitimate military reasons for attacking Dresden?

Yes I do, there was no military reason to attack Dresden, even Churchill later admitted it was a mistake. Sometimes human casualties outweigh military gain. In the end it harmed the Allies more than it helped

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


From that article:

Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany - the pre-war population was 630,000 - which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.

Until the advent of precision guided munitions, any bombing mission meant civilian casualties, often massive civilian casualties. According to your post, Dresden was targeted because of its civilian population as a moral buster. Yet in the article to which you referred us, it appears that there were legitimate military reasons for attacking Dresden.

Do you deny that there were legitimate military reasons for attacking Dresden?

That was not really and "article" it was an introduction followed by primary source material. You should have showed that you got those things from Arthur Harris, the marshall of the air force who was heavily criticized for the Dresden bombing. How can you read historical information without understand the bias from each source.

Dresden was a city full of refugees and it was barely even protected by anti air.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles



And we did not bomb Serbia and Kosovo to oblivion. That implies we carpet bombed civilian populations, which we did not.

Boom, there is the spin I was waiting for.

And where in my post did I assume your party affiliation? All I know is you are being extremely hypocrtical if you are trying to call out Iraq, and not the damage done in Kosovo.

It is you who said (paraphrasing) that you care about all humans, not based on color, or heritige.

So certainly you would care about the missles launched for 2 months into Kosovo, on behalf of our gov't, which achieved no objective for our national security, and from a strictly US national security point of view was a fairly useless conflict.

All that it really did was kill a bunch of people that were killing other people.

Isn't that what we are doing in Iraq?

[Destino]

Originally posted by BlueTalon

What point did I duck? He said, "Yes it feels good to say "we were right, and if anyone else gets in our way we'll kill them too" and I don't know what the heck he's talking about. I've never heard anyone say anything close to that.

If there are people drowning in a pool, I'm not going to ask them their nationality before I pull them out. But when making policy decisions, its the job of the US government to look out for American lives and American interests first.

Actually, it seems you ducked my very valid point, by responding to my post without answering the question. Let's try it again.
Is it your opinion that the American government should NOT look after American interests and American lives first? The american government absolutely has to look after the interests of americans first, but that doesn't mean all other matter are ignored. It would save US lives to nuke enemies instead of sending troops in, but everyone who even bothers with moral concepts of right and wrong can see that would be wrong.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Liberty


I said it was terrorism I didn't say one from was better than the other Thiebear.

So in your own words we should have not done anything.
Let Germany kill off an entire race and kill everyone that doesnt "look" right.

Maybe its just me but to say Japan got a raw deal is Stupid.
Show me again how Japan vs. say the Jews or the USSR got a worse deal?



http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html


Country Pop. Killed/Mising Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)
Germany 78m 3.5 million 4.6 million 8.1 million 2million
Italy 44m 330,000 ? 70,000
Japan 72m 1.75 million ? 350,000
Rumania 20m 500,000 300,000 800,000 400,000
Bulgaria 6m 10,000 ? 50,000
Hungary 10m 120,000 250,000 370,000 200,000
Finland 4m 100,000 45,000 145,000 4,000
Country Pop. Killed/Mising Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)



Allied Forces (in order of entry into the war)


Country Pop. Killed/Mising Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)

China 450m 1.3 million 1.8 million 3.1 million 9 million
Poland 35m 130,000 200,000 330,000 2.5million
U.K. 48m 400,000 300,000 700,000 60,000
France 42m 250,000 350,000 600,000 270,000
Australia 7m 30,000 40,000 70,000 --
India 360m 36,000 64,000 100,000 --
New Zealand 2m 10,000 20,000 30,000 --
So. Africa 10m 9,000 14,000 23,000 --
Canada 11m 42,000 50,000 92,000 --
Denmark 4m 2,000 ? ? 1,000
Norway 3m 10,000 ? ? 6,000
Belgium 8m 12,000 16,000 28,000 100,000
Holland 9m 14,000 7,000 21,000 250,000
Greece 7m 90,000 ? ? 400,000
Yugoslavia 15m 320,000 ? ? 1.3million
U.S.S.R. 194m 9 million 18 million 27 million 19 million
U.S.A. 129m 300,000 300,000 600,000 --



I know, I know, your just saying America is better than that. Your not saying "Japan/Italy/Germany" didnt deserve it.. We should have held back and done it manually... and killed more.

That war was for the population of the planet: thank god we won.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Thiebear


So in your own words we should have not done anything.
Let Germany kill off an entire race and kill everyone that doesnt "look" right.

Maybe its just me but to say Japan got a raw deal is Stupid.
Show me again how Japan vs. say the Jews or the USSR got a worse deal?



http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/~jobrien/reference/ob62.html


I know, I know, your just saying America is better than that. Your not saying "Japan/Italy/Germany" didnt deserve it.. We should have held back and done it manually... and killed more.

That war was for the population of the planet: thank god we won.

In my own words what? Show me those words that imply I said anything like that. I can never understand your posts man.

[Larry]

Originally posted by CrabR
The criteria used to chose the targets:
1-show off the bomb's power to the maximum effect
2-making the greatest impression possible on the Japanese
3-targets would be undamaged by conventional bombing
4-geographical layouts that would maximize damage from the bomb's blast wave

The Air Force were also ordered not to firebomb these cities


Assuming your (unsubstantiated) points are correct, (And I do agree, the points listed were objectives.):

Does that mean these objectives were chosen because "This way we can kill more civilians"?

Or were they chosen because "this way the Japanese leadership will have more spectacular evidence, to hurry them to the surrender table"?

Like the old story about the mule trainer and the 2x4, "First you have to get his attention."

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan


Boom, there is the spin I was waiting for.

And where in my post did I assume your party affiliation? All I know is you are being extremely hypocrtical if you are trying to call out Iraq, and not the damage done in Kosovo.

It is you who said (paraphrasing) that you care about all humans, not based on color, or heritige.

So certainly you would care about the missles launched for 2 months into Kosovo, on behalf of our gov't, which achieved no objective for our national security, and from a strictly US national security point of view was a fairly useless conflict.

All that it really did was kill a bunch of people that were killing other people.

Isn't that what we are doing in Iraq?

Heh. You're the one spinning like a cd on friday night. I never said anything about Iraq being carpet bombed. Indeed, with the possible exception of Falluja, Iraq is quite intact all things considered. I don't have a problem with our bombing METHODS in Iraq, I have a problem with our war policy as a whole.

As for Kosovo, I find it facinating that because the Muslims were being slaughtered by Christians, the American conservatives wanted nothing to do with stopping the genocide. At the time of the Iraq invasion, there was no genocide in progress. The Kurdish gas massacre happened 17 years ago and we did not lift a finger to help them in 1988.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally posted by Bang



No, I'm not kidding.
Self righteous ignorance.
This thread is about the atomic bomb, not Iraq. This thread is about decisions made in a different time, not Saudi Arabia.

I tried in my last post to bring you back to that point, but you'd prefer to use the pulpit to run off at what you believe based on 65 years of hindsight and historic reflection.
I went to great lengths to ask you to try to think outside of your own modern paradigm to try to think in terms of 1945 and what the people of that time lived thru.
But, instead, you'd rather mock, and drag up all the things this thread isn't about.

You pretend to know more than the people who lived thru it, due to your overhwleming advantage of knowing what has happened since.
You say things along the lines of "all those people I'd see killed in the name of "saving" American lives" yet you totally ignore my previous posts saying that dropping the atomic bomb was one of the worst things to ever happen in the recorded history of man.
You specifically paint me as a flag waving chest beater, which I am not. You allude to this as not helping to 'solve our current crisis and indeed exaserbate the problem" yet you totally ignore the fact that no one has yet even brought UP the thought of using a nuke as a solution to our current crisis, other than to respond to a nuke set off by our enemy. The problem discussed here is the use of NUKES, not soldiers. And the fact we haven't used a nuke even after 9-11 when everyone in this country was pissed off and filled with bloodlust should prove to you that the people who are in charge of the nuke do in fact see it as the LAST OPTION. What "problem" with that is there? You can't pretend they don't exist,,you can't destroy them. The cat is out of the bag, nukes are a reality.

You claim we haven't 'learned anything' yet you totally ignore the numbers of times since Hiroshima that we have NOT used the nuke. You also totally ignore the numbers of times in this single thread alone that I have pointed out our relative responsibility to the Nuclear Weapon.
You take the ultimate assumption, and decide I, and many others here, just don't care about other people. You say it's easy for us, since we don't live in a war zone. (Yes we do, by the way. Or maybe you haven't noticed the machine gun vehicles as you drive down the GW parkway, or the anti-aircraft batteries on rooftops around DC.)
And this...
goes against every single thing I've said in this thread. You tell me I'm self righteous by trying to think in terms of 1945. I've never said "the japs had it comin'", I never said they asked for it, I said that the history of it says that the decision came down to invasion, or bomb. They chose bomb, and in fact, it did do exactly what they had hoped it would. Brought a swift end to the war without an invasion.
I haven't agreed or disagreed with the decision. I've seen it for what it was, an attempt to end the single most bloody conflict this world has ever known. In my posts I have simply tried to put forth the thinking of the times to make their case. I've agreed it was a horrible thing, and I've agreed that in many eyes of the times, it was justified.
You didn't take the time to read before firing back. You shot without listening. It's good you don't have YOUR finger on the button, eh?

So far it seems to me you like to pop off at the mouth, but think the second half of debate is not worthwhile, namely the listening part. You're convinced your right, you don'thave to read the opposiung viewpoint for more than a few sentences before you have it all figured out.
Here's the cliff's notes version: Bang think the dropping of the bomb was one of the worst things that has ever happened on this world. Bang thinks that we have been duly shocked into what it does to the point that we have never used it again. Bang thinks that given the circumstance of the times, it's not too difficult to see why they dropped it. Bang thinks that hindsight gives us a luxury of being able to debate this, something they didn't have. Bang thinks that to intelligently debate this, you have to somehat remove yourself from the lessons history has taught, and try to put yourself in their shoes. Bang doesn't think that means you automatically will agree with it, but that it will give you a better perspective from which to debate.
That's pretty much it. Is that self righteous?

Friday, you took a nice potshot at me personally, even calling me out by my name, and now you're going to sit in here and point your finger at me again without bothering to understand what has been said to you.

If that isn't self righteous ignorance, i don't know what is.

~Bang


Cold blooded!!!

http://members.tripod.com/AngryLush/RJames204.jpg

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Bang



No, I'm not kidding.
Self righteous ignorance.
This thread is about the atomic bomb, not Iraq. This thread is about decisions made in a different time, not Saudi Arabia.

I tried in my last post to bring you back to that point, but you'd prefer to use the pulpit to run off at what you believe based on 65 years of hindsight and historic reflection.
I went to great lengths to ask you to try to think outside of your own modern paradigm to try to think in terms of 1945 and what the people of that time lived thru.
But, instead, you'd rather mock, and drag up all the things this thread isn't about.

You pretend to know more than the people who lived thru it, due to your overhwleming advantage of knowing what has happened since.
You say things along the lines of "all those people I'd see killed in the name of "saving" American lives" yet you totally ignore my previous posts saying that dropping the atomic bomb was one of the worst things to ever happen in the recorded history of man.
You specifically paint me as a flag waving chest beater, which I am not. You allude to this as not helping to 'solve our current crisis and indeed exaserbate the problem" yet you totally ignore the fact that no one has yet even brought UP the thought of using a nuke as a solution to our current crisis, other than to respond to a nuke set off by our enemy. The problem discussed here is the use of NUKES, not soldiers. And the fact we haven't used a nuke even after 9-11 when everyone in this country was pissed off and filled with bloodlust should prove to you that the people who are in charge of the nuke do in fact see it as the LAST OPTION. What "problem" with that is there? You can't pretend they don't exist,,you can't destroy them. The cat is out of the bag, nukes are a reality.

You claim we haven't 'learned anything' yet you totally ignore the numbers of times since Hiroshima that we have NOT used the nuke. You also totally ignore the numbers of times in this single thread alone that I have pointed out our relative responsibility to the Nuclear Weapon.
You take the ultimate assumption, and decide I, and many others here, just don't care about other people. You say it's easy for us, since we don't live in a war zone. (Yes we do, by the way. Or maybe you haven't noticed the machine gun vehicles as you drive down the GW parkway, or the anti-aircraft batteries on rooftops around DC.)
And this...
goes against every single thing I've said in this thread. You tell me I'm self righteous by trying to think in terms of 1945. I've never said "the japs had it comin'", I never said they asked for it, I said that the history of it says that the decision came down to invasion, or bomb. They chose bomb, and in fact, it did do exactly what they had hoped it would. Brought a swift end to the war without an invasion.
I haven't agreed or disagreed with the decision. I've seen it for what it was, an attempt to end the single most bloody conflict this world has ever known. In my posts I have simply tried to put forth the thinking of the times to make their case. I've agreed it was a horrible thing, and I've agreed that in many eyes of the times, it was justified.
You didn't take the time to read before firing back. You shot without listening. It's good you don't have YOUR finger on the button, eh?

So far it seems to me you like to pop off at the mouth, but think the second half of debate is not worthwhile, namely the listening part. You're convinced your right, you don'thave to read the opposiung viewpoint for more than a few sentences before you have it all figured out.
Here's the cliff's notes version: Bang think the dropping of the bomb was one of the worst things that has ever happened on this world. Bang thinks that we have been duly shocked into what it does to the point that we have never used it again. Bang thinks that given the circumstance of the times, it's not too difficult to see why they dropped it. Bang thinks that hindsight gives us a luxury of being able to debate this, something they didn't have. Bang thinks that to intelligently debate this, you have to somehat remove yourself from the lessons history has taught, and try to put yourself in their shoes. Bang doesn't think that means you automatically will agree with it, but that it will give you a better perspective from which to debate.
That's pretty much it. Is that self righteous?

Friday, you took a nice potshot at me personally, even calling me out by my name, and now you're going to sit in here and point your finger at me again without bothering to understand what has been said to you.

If that isn't self righteous ignorance, i don't know what is.

~Bang

I have never seen such a clear cut case of someone hearing what the want to hear, and ignoring the rest.

I took a pot shot at you? You took a multitude of potshots at my skin, so you can park that one. You put yourself out there with your cartoons. You intentionally make them controversial and inviting ciriticism. Now you want to whine because someone was offended? Gimme a break. You go around poking people in the eye, you don't get to be outraged when one of them cracks you in the jaw. Enough on the personal, back the discussion at hand...

As bad as you want to make this issue about nukes, it simply isn't. HOW the nuke was used is what is at issue. Had we bombed their fleet at sea there would be far less discussion. Truman went after the civilian population. THAT is what is at issue here. Was Hiroshima a terrorist act because civilians were targeted. How many times we have used the bomb since has NOTHING to do with the issue. How we regard other people on the planet, and how we define terrorist acts IS relevant today.

As for what Bang thinks, I'll simplify to make myself better understood. You are trying to justify melting 100,000 people by saying "it was the times". The same argument that people have been makeing for everything from slavery, to prohibition, to women's sufferage, to McCarthyism. It's ok, because the hysteria of the time dictated colossal stupidity. And no, I'm still not buying it. The ethical "paradigm" has not shifted that much in 60 years. They knew, even back then, that frying a city full of civilians was a dirty tactic. Furthermore, Truman refused to allow the Japanese to surrender when they attempted negotiations through Russia.

On a personal note: If you want to make this about you and me, fine. But that will be on you. I am in this debate with 6 or 7 other people, and it's by no means a personal issue for me. I resoponded to you because you went after something I said, thus initiating debate with me. If you don't like the way I do things, ignore me and don't quote me.

[Thiebear]

Im going to miss Stotgun.. he don't read to well but .. no thats about it...

[Bang]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


I have never seen such a clear cut case of someone hearing what the want to hear, and ignoring the rest.

I took a pot shot at you? You took a multitude of potshots at my skin, so you can park that one. You put yourself out there with your cartoons. You intentionally make them controversial and inviting ciriticism. Now you want to whine because someone was offended? Gimme a break. You go around poking people in the eye, you don't get to be outraged when one of them cracks you in the jaw. Enough on the personal, back the discussion at hand...

As bad as you want to make this issue about nukes, it simply isn't. HOW the nuke was used is what is at issue. Had we bombed their fleet at sea there would be far less discussion. Truman went after the civilian population. THAT is what is at issue here. Was Hiroshima a terrorist act because civilians were targeted. How many times we have used the bomb since has NOTHING to do with the issue. How we regard other people on the planet, and how we define terrorist acts IS relevant today.

As for what Bang thinks, I'll simplify to make myself better understood. You are trying to justify melting 100,000 people by saying "it was the times". The same argument that people have been makeing for everything from slavery, to prohibition, to women's sufferage, to McCarthyism. It's ok, because the hysteria of the time dictated colossal stupidity. And no, I'm still not buying it. The ethical "paradigm" has not shifted that much in 60 years. They knew, even back then, that frying a city full of civilians was a dirty tactic. Furthermore, Truman refused to allow the Japanese to surrender when they attempted negotiations through Russia.

On a personal note: If you want to make this about you and me, fine. But that will be on you. I am in this debate with 6 or 7 other people, and it's by no means a personal issue for me. I resoponded to you because you went after something I said, thus initiating debate with me. If you don't like the way I do things, ignore me and don't quote me.

Again with the claims as to my racism, even tho i clearly illustrated to you i took potshots you didn't even recognize, demonstrating your clear desire to find problems that don't exist.
Whatever, slick.
I never justifed a THING. In fact, for the FOURTH TIME NOW< I have said that dropping the bomb is one of the worst things that has ever happened in the course of human history.
I simply said "Think about in context of the times". I simply said you and me and everyone else has the benefit of hindsight, and with that enormous advantage it is easy enough to sit around sixty years later and pretend to know better.

Enough with you.

~Bang

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Bang


Again with the claims as to my racism, even tho i clearly illustrated to you i took potshots you didn't even recognize, demonstrating your clear desire to find problems that don't exist.
Whatever, slick.
I never justifed a THING. In fact, for the FOURTH TIME NOW< I have said that dropping the bomb is one of the worst things that has ever happened in the course of human history.
I simply said "Think about in context of the times". I simply said you and me and everyone else has the benefit of hindsight, and with that enormous advantage it is easy enough to sit around sixty years later and pretend to know better.

Enough with you.

~Bang

And that's that...

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC


I have a general question for you Destino, when is a civilian no longer a civilian?

By this I mean at what point do they cross the line to a enemy combatant?


This is directed at Destino, but obvioulsy I would like anyone who wishes to, to answer this.


No takers from the Truman haters?

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC



No takers from the Truman haters?

I don't think people hate Truman. I don't. I think he overstepped his bounds and tried to play God. But he was by NO MEANS the only one.

As for the issue of combatants, I think if you intend to invade any country that anyone could be considered combatants. It is the natural instinct of people to defend their homes.

I already know where you're going with this, so lets hear it Silver...

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


I don't think people hate Truman. I don't. I think he overstepped his bounds and tried to play God. But he was by NO MEANS the only one.

As for the issue of combatants, I think if you intend to invade any country that anyone could be considered combatants. It is the natural instinct of people to defend their homes.

I already know where you're going with this, so lets hear it Silver...

No hate? Really? Cause to me "rot in hell" is a pretty hateful comment.

No you didn't say it, luckydevil did that, but you've come close enough.

As for the issue of enemy combatants, you didn't answer the question, I asked when does someone move from civilian to enemy, not who can become one. Obviously anyone can become an enemy combatant. But at what point do they become one?

And I don't think I'll show my hand till someone answers the question as it was asked, instead of guessing my next move and trying to anticipate it with an answer that really isn't an answer.;)

[Destino]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC

No takers from the Truman haters? I didn't see the question. I'm hardly a Truman hater but I think a logical first step would be when civilians have a say in their governments actions. Do you think a person under a dictatorship is to blame for the actions of a dictator?

After that you'd have to show the individual was in support of whatever it is you wish to blame them for.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Destino
I didn't see the question. I'm hardly a Truman hater but I think a logical first step would be when civilians have a say in their governments actions. Do you think a person under a dictatorship is to blame for the actions of a dictator?

After that you'd have to show the individual was in support of whatever it is you wish to blame them for.

Can you give me an example of when you would have considered this to have happened so I can get a better grasp of your definition?

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by NavyDave
Civillians do have a say at the voting booth.

When it comes to war and defending the nation peaceniks opinions should be treated like a rugrats 4th demand for another toy seen on tv.......... tuned out.

Heck civillians have practically forgotten about 9-11 and expect things like war to be over like in a reality show.

I keep hearing these idiots expecting us out of Iraq in a year when we have had troops in Bosnia since 95 and germany/japan since 45

Some countries don't afford that luxury. 1945 japan was one of those countries.


But that is getting away from the topic at hand, and hopefully the answer to my question.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by NavyDave
Ahh the day that the two legged relatives of invertabrates come together, lighting candles to send down pure streams, wear beads hold hand with alternative lifestyle types and snivel about how the "Evil Americans" unfairly beat the ***** of our enemies in the 2nd World War.

Peacenik speech:

Sniff, Sniff if only we showed the compassion that the enemy didn't show, sniff sniff they would ve came aound to our way of thinking sooner or later.

"Sniff sniff, snivel" We could ve provided shade trees along Pennsylvania avenue for the wronged forces of Nippon and Italy.

These sniveling spineless people are similar to the 66% who was against the American Revolution and was willing to bend over for the Brits.

Why havent we relocated these people to Switzerland and France where cowardice and being spineless is a lifestyle?

Kill em all and let God sort em out?

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC


No hate? Really? Cause to me "rot in hell" is a pretty hateful comment.

No you didn't say it, luckydevil did that, but you've come close enough.

As for the issue of enemy combatants, you didn't answer the question, I asked when does someone move from civilian to enemy, not who can become one. Obviously anyone can become an enemy combatant. But at what point do they become one?

And I don't think I'll show my hand till someone answers the question as it was asked, instead of guessing my next move and trying to anticipate it with an answer that really isn't an answer.;)

Yeah but it's fun to try and anticipate your next move :cheers:

I think I did answer your question: as soon as you invade. People will defend their homes and become combatants. I was pretty clear...

I don't hate Truman, and you've got me on the "Rot in hell" comment. I forgot about that. Truman went beyond the pale. I don't think he did it because he was evil, I think he believed he was right.

An aside: I believe in Bush's sincerity. I don't buy for a second the idea that he's evil. He believes in what he is doing, he just happens to be wrong. It's his intellect, and knowledge I question, not his character.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Kill em all and let God sort em out?



'Zactly.:no:

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Yeah but it's fun to try and anticipate your next move :cheers:

I think I did answer your question: as soon as you invade. People will defend their homes and become combatants. I was pretty clear...

I don't hate Truman, and you've got me on the "Rot in hell" comment. I forgot about that. Truman went beyond the pale. I don't think he did it because he was evil, I think he believed he was right.

An aside: I believe in Bush's sincerity. I don't buy for a second the idea that he's evil. He believes in what he is doing, he just happens to be wrong. It's his intellect, and knowledge I question, not his character.

Lol, well, just as long as we're all enjoying the convo:)

No, you said pretty much evryone can be one, but never touched on when exactly they became one only why they bacame one til just now.

Another question though, would you say that industrial assets are legitimate military targets?

And please don't get me started on elmer fudd (bush) I am a registered Dem, and fiercely anti-moron.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Liberty


In my own words what? Show me those words that imply I said anything like that. I can never understand your posts man.

So give us your options:

1. Atomic Bomb: Nope, terror is terror.
2. If you firebomb you kill 5x the amount of people we did with the atomic bomb. Firebombs are worse than the Atomic in sheer numbers (as you posted)
3. General Assault on the Beaches with 10k Kamakazi(sp) bombers and people willing to fight to the death/no surrender...
4. Let them all fight it out and just stay here.

Whats your option? Please insert one if none seem to fit your non-terrorism version, but remember the list of dead i posted earlier.. Cause 126k seems kinda small in comparison to what we were trying to stop...

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC


Lol, well, just as long as we're all enjoying the convo:)

No, you said pretty much evryone can be one, but never touched on when exactly they became one only why they bacame one til just now.

Another question though, would you say that industrial assets are legitimate military targets?

And please don't get me started on elmer fudd (bush) I am a registered Dem, and fiercely anti-moron.

Industrial assets yes. They families, homes, schools and hospitals around them? No.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


I don't think people hate Truman. I don't. I think he overstepped his bounds and tried to play God. But he was by NO MEANS the only one.

As for the issue of combatants, I think if you intend to invade any country that anyone could be considered combatants. It is the natural instinct of people to defend their homes.

I already know where you're going with this, so lets hear it Silver...

You need to read LOAC to get a handle on the whole "combatant" "non-combatant" thing

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Thiebear


So give us your options:

1. Atomic Bomb: Nope, terror is terror.
2. If you firebomb you kill 5x the amount of people we did with the atomic bomb. Firebombs are worse than the Atomic in sheer numbers (as you posted)
3. General Assault on the Beaches with 10k Kamakazi(sp) bombers and people willing to fight to the death/no surrender...
4. Let them all fight it out and just stay here.

Whats your option? Please insert one if none seem to fit your non-terrorism version, but remember the list of dead i posted earlier.. Cause 126k seems kinda small in comparison to what we were trying to stop...

Problem with #3. They tried to surrender, Truman wouldn't let them. He felt he needed a strong show of force with the bomb.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Sarge


You need to read LOAC to get a handle on the whole "combatant" "non-combatant" thing

Man, just quote it...:doh:

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Industrial assets yes. They families, homes, schools and hospitals around them? No.


You wouldn't call the people of a society industrial assets? Are you sure of that?

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Thiebear


So give us your options:

1. Atomic Bomb: Nope, terror is terror.
2. If you firebomb you kill 5x the amount of people we did with the atomic bomb. Firebombs are worse than the Atomic in sheer numbers (as you posted)
3. General Assault on the Beaches with 10k Kamakazi(sp) bombers and people willing to fight to the death/no surrender...
4. Let them all fight it out and just stay here.

Whats your option? Please insert one if none seem to fit your non-terrorism version, but remember the list of dead i posted earlier.. Cause 126k seems kinda small in comparison to what we were trying to stop...

The bombing of civillians on purpose in contrast to collater damage when trying to bomb just military targets is TERRORISM. You can try to justify terrorism if you want, I won't.

I don't think an invasion was even neccessary, Eisenhower, and Admiral Leahy William D Leahy
agreed that Japan was defeated and posed no offensive threat to the US.




"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his 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 Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380



ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this 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.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.


I will tell you that I would never use terrorism to achieve my goals. If you think terrorism can be justified make the case, but don't be coward and call it by a prettier name.


Now Thiebear, tell me of the instances in which you would use terrorism and which you wouldn't.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Destino
I didn't see the question. I'm hardly a Truman hater but I think a logical first step would be when civilians have a say in their governments actions. Do you think a person under a dictatorship is to blame for the actions of a dictator?

(Haven't read the intervening posts, so this may have been pointed out, already.)

You do realise, by that definition, then the World Trade Center was a military target, right?

(No, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Just pointing out how easy it is to blur those lines.)

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Man, just quote it...:doh:

Sorry, quit doing homework for people a looong time ago. Just Google it and consider it something new you learned today:D

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC



You wouldn't call the people of a society industrial assets? Are you sure of that?

I think Larry's comment speaks to the slippery slope you're suggesting. If everyone who contributes to a society is considered a combatant, then there is no such thing as a civilian. Babies perhaps. But the bomb got them too. Nursuries and grade schools.

So to answer your question, yes and no. I think you have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. Otherwise, what are we even talking about?

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Sarge


Sorry, quit doing homework for people a looong time ago. Just Google it and consider it something new you learned today:D

Sarge, if you don't post that quote I'm gonna come over there with some pliers and yank out your nose hairs :laugh:

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


I think Larry's comment speaks to the slippery slope you're suggesting. If everyone who contributes to a society is considered a combatant, then there is no such thing as a civilian. Babies perhaps. But the bomb got them too. Nursuries and grade schools.

So to answer your question, yes and no. I think you have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. Otherwise, what are we even talking about?


Right, but where my personal line would be is that this was wartime that we are talking about, not just one day out of the blue.


This is against a nation that pledged litlerally to fight us to their dying breath.


Trumans action took their breath away.


Pretty much all of those people would have died, plus many others had we invaded.

And I don't buy the fact that they wanted to surrender, least of all to the soviets, of whom they were old enemies.

Or did you forget that the japs also pulled a sneak attack on them in 1904? They were a decietful enemy. And the Russians were bitter about it, I highly doubt the japs would willingly surrender to the russians instead of us if given the choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC



Right, but where my personal line would be is that this was wartime that we are talking about, not just one day out of the blue.


This is against a nation that pledged litlerally to fight us to their dying breath.


Trumans action took their breath away.


Pretty much all of those people would have died, plus many others had we invaded.

And I don't buy the fact that they wanted to surrender, least of all to the soviets, of whom they were old enemies.

Or did you forget that the japs also pulled a sneak attack on them in 1904? They were a decietful enemy. And the Russians were bitter about it, I highly doubt the japs would willingly surrender to the russians instead of us if given the choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

First of all, you're a little too young to be calling anybody "Japs".

Second, if all that is true (I don't agree that it is) why not allow the Japanese to surrender. That would have saved lives all around. Instead, with a surrender on the table, Truman dropped 2 nukes anyway.

There is just more to it than the supposed claim of saving lives. Truman believed the Japanese were sub human, and said so. Had he seen them as people, perhaps he would have exercised more restraint...

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Problem with #3. They tried to surrender, Truman wouldn't let them. He felt he needed a strong show of force with the bomb.

I do not believe that is accurate. Some people have tried to make that argument, but I have not found their evidence persuasive. To the contrary, the hawks in control of the Japanese government were not willing to surrender, and they would have assassinated any political leader who attempted to pursue such an avenue. At that time, Japan had a dysfunctional political structure, led by a supreme council that was deadlocked and which was led by a ultranationalist who essentially had veto power over the council's agenda.

Ah what do I know. I've only read about a dozen or fifteen books on WWII.

It is easy to say in hindsight that Truman did the wrong thing, but I do not criticize him for doing what he believed he had to do at that time to save the lives of untold numbers of American troops.

PS - those of you who keep jumping on "liberals" on this thing, STFU. Yes you Sarge, who started this thread with one of your usual inflammatory and uncalled for digs. Shut up. And you, NavyDave, who never, ever has anything to add beyond hostile rants that reveal only your own ignorance. Shut up. This is not a liberal/conservative thing we are talking about here, and the issues call for more thought than your usual playground taunts.

[Larry]

I'd like to propose a peace treaty.

A while back, there was a movie, The Final Countdown. USS Nimitz gets swept by a Mysterious Force, back in time to Dec 6, 1941.

The movie was basicly an excuse for some aerial photography of Tomcats dogfighting with Zeros. But the "plot" involved the Captain's decision whether or not to "change history" by defending US soil from an enemy military force.

The "don't interfere" argument was made by Martin Sheen, as some kind of scientist. In the film, the Captain decides to intervene, but the Force carries them back to the present before they can do so.

I've always thought there was one position that should have been argued, but wasn't presented.

If I'm the Captain, I chose not to intervene. But it's not because of any belief in the Prime Directive or the Temporal Code, or whatever.

I don't intervene, because I know how this war ends. If I intervene, then I've got no way in heck of knowing how things turn out. But I know what happens if I do nothing.

And I'm willing to let it happen.

-----

Now, re: Hiroshima.

There isn't one person here who knows How Things Would Be Different.

We can argue about "What I would have done". (Although, I think, if we're playing that game, then one of the rules needs to be that the players can only consider the things that were known then.)

Should we do it again? That depends on the circumstances. (I suppose it's possible for people to defend the position that such things Are Never Justified. I just think such people are wrong.)

But I think, when it comes to the question of "Should we have done it then?", then I'll have to defer to "I think it worked out OK."

[NoCalMike]

The bomb itself might not have been the problem, however where it was dropped and casualties of innocent civilians is not something to "ho hum" about.

The firebombing raids could and should be considered just as disgusting of an act, but sadly they are far lesser known about by the general public.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by NoCalMike
The bomb itself might not have been the problem, however where it was dropped and casualties of innocent civilians is not something to "ho hum" about.

The firebombing raids could and should be considered just as disgusting of an act, but sadly they are far lesser known about by the general public.

Yeah, how come no one talks about the Tokyo BBQ? I guess the bomb is just more prominent in peoples minds because of the historical president. You make a good point though...

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Yeah, how come no one talks about the Tokyo BBQ? I guess the bomb is just more prominent in peoples minds because of the historical president. You make a good point though...

Where the hell have you been? The firebombings were mentioned and discussed numerous times in this thread.

[Mooka]

Normally I would lean towards a more liberal view on these types of debates but the Japanese were so atrocious and brutal that its hard for me to find sympathy.

The desctruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were terrible events but they are nothing compared to some of the things that the Japanese did:

The Rape of Nanking, Capture of Singapore, Slaughter of Chekiang, Harsh treatment of POWs, the Bataan Death March and the testing of Chemical and Pathogenic weapons on human subjetcs. To name a few.

The chemical weapons testing is very disturbing. Not only did the Japanese have straight "death factories" where they would test their chemical and pathogenic weapons on POW's and captured innocents including women and children, but it wasn't enough. They had to have field tests consisting of giving out tainted food with deadly pathogens, lacing drinking water, spraying villages with biological weapons from the air and giving out fake inoculations where they were injecting people with all sorts of biolical weapons and pathogens.

The Rape of Nanking in itself I think is far worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Estimated around 300,000 innocents slaughtered. Also an estimated 80,000 women raped including young girls. 1 recorded event is of a hospital where the Japanese soldiers rounded up the nurses to be gang raped and they went around doing in-humane tortures to the patients. (bashing people with casts, ripping off bandages and preforming nasty mutilations with surgical tools)

These things are so damn atrocious they completely dwarf the bombings of Nagaska and Hiroshima or something like the recent terrorist attacks of 9/11. At least we didn't invade Japan and mutilate everyone or rape all their women and young girls. At least we didn't test chemical weapons on captured Japanese POW's.

As far as I'm concerned the Japanese government is to blame for anything that happened.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


First of all, you're a little too young to be calling anybody "Japs".

Second, if all that is true (I don't agree that it is) why not allow the Japanese to surrender. That would have saved lives all around. Instead, with a surrender on the table, Truman dropped 2 nukes anyway.

There is just more to it than the supposed claim of saving lives. Truman believed the Japanese were sub human, and said so. Had he seen them as people, perhaps he would have exercised more restraint...


Am I also too young to be calling people brits and scots? Cause I do that too, I hope you can live with it.


And as far as lettting them surrender, who says they would have had we not?

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


Where the hell have you been? The firebombings were mentioned and discussed numerous times in this thread.


Um, yeah, thats what I was thinking.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC



Um, yeah, thats what I was thinking.

Well, I thought he meant the world discussion of this issue, not just the discussion on this board. And yes, I agree with him, the firebombings are under represented in the larger dialogue.

But yes, it has been mentioned in this thread...

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC



Am I also too young to be calling people brits and scots? Cause I do that too, I hope you can live with it.


And as far as lettting them surrender, who says they would have had we not?

Oh come on dude. You know you're not supposed to call Japanese people "Japs". Be real...

The Japanese tried to surrender using Russia as a mediator. This is common knowlege, not some secret. Truman felt that they needed to surrender to us, and without condition. This included the condition that Emperor Hirohito not be protected from prosecution. Which he was anyway.

You need to read those 15 books on WW2 again. You missed some stuff...

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Oh come on dude. You know you're not supposed to call Japanese people "Japs". Be real...

The Japanese tried to surrender using Russia as a mediator. This is common knowlege, not some secret. Truman felt that they needed to surrender to us, and without condition. This included the condition that Emperor Hirohito not be protected from prosecution. Which he was anyway.

You need to read those 15 books on WW2 again. You missed some stuff...


Too "PC" for me, it's shorter and more American to abbreviate things.;)


Was it only 15?

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Shotgun Styles


Well, I thought he meant the world discussion of this issue, not just the discussion on this board. And yes, I agree with him, the firebombings are under represented in the larger dialogue.

But yes, it has been mentioned in this thread...

Ok, I see, I cry your pardon.:)

[luckydevil]

Originally posted by Mooka
Normally I would lean towards a more liberal view on these types of debates but the Japanese were so atrocious and brutal that its hard for me to find sympathy.

The desctruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were terrible events but they are nothing compared to some of the things that the Japanese did:

The Rape of Nanking, Capture of Singapore, Slaughter of Chekiang, Harsh treatment of POWs, the Bataan Death March and the testing of Chemical and Pathogenic weapons on human subjetcs. To name a few.

The chemical weapons testing is very disturbing. Not only did the Japanese have straight "death factories" where they would test their chemical and pathogenic weapons on POW's and captured innocents including women and children, but it wasn't enough. They had to have field tests consisting of giving out tainted food with deadly pathogens, lacing drinking water, spraying villages with biological weapons from the air and giving out fake inoculations where they were injecting people with all sorts of biolical weapons and pathogens.

The Rape of Nanking in itself I think is far worse than Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Estimated around 300,000 innocents slaughtered. Also an estimated 80,000 women raped including young girls. 1 recorded event is of a hospital where the Japanese soldiers rounded up the nurses to be gang raped and they went around doing in-humane tortures to the patients. (bashing people with casts, ripping off bandages and preforming nasty mutilations with surgical tools)

These things are so damn atrocious they completely dwarf the bombings of Nagaska and Hiroshima or something like the recent terrorist attacks of 9/11. At least we didn't invade Japan and mutilate everyone or rape all their women and young girls. At least we didn't test chemical weapons on captured Japanese POW's.

Sure, if we compare the actions of our government compared to Japan's, we come out on top

But the “they were really bad, so it ok for us to be bad as well" type argument just doesn't sit well with me.


As far as I'm concerned the Japanese government is to
blame for anything that happened.

War doesn’t just grow out of thin air. Fundamentally, individuals are responsible for their own actions and atrocities are committed because someone decides to commit them. Politicians/soldiers are not immune from responsibility.

Truman deliberately targeted innocent people for political gain. That’s terrorism. Oh and being American doesnt change the fact

[Mooka]

Originally posted by luckydevil

Sure, if we compare the actions of our government compared to Japan's, we come out on top

But the “they were really bad, so it ok for us to be bad as well" type argument just doesn't sit well with me.

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy on this particular issue. I'm a bad political example though because its a personal issue for me. I have family from Korea and China and I've heard many horror stories about the Japanese. I won't go into it. Lets just say I'm very proud of my Grandparents for surviving such an ordeal and moving to America so our family could have a better life.


Originally posted by luckydevil

Truman deliberately targeted innocent people for political gain. That’s terrorism. Oh and being American doesnt change the fact

Call it whatever you want. It stopped the Japanese and since then Japan has prospered as a peaceful nation. How do you weigh human life or distinguish between one form of terrorism from another? Well when it comes to my family I draw the line. Like I said before though I'm a bad example.

[Sarge]

If anybody is interested, there's a great book out there called "Flyboys". Let's you in on the behavior of the Japanese military during the war

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC

Too "PC" for me, it's shorter and more American to abbreviate things.;)

Was it only 15?

As an aside, "Jap" is just about as uncalled-for a term for Japanese people as the n-word is for black people.

Since you're bent on not being "PC," why don't you head down to Anacostia on Friday night and break out the n-word?

[dreamingwolf]

I know Im late getting back to the party but thats cause I was partying.


When I made the post that Liberty dismissed, I made it as a general mock of him. Of course I dont think he wants us to view the general muslim and arab people as targets when they attack. What I was highlighting was what he(not cause of his background, but cause of what is the collegiate smart guy belief) is saying is terrorism is no different than what nation states engage in.

This is a very dangerous permission to terrorists. Is fire bombings or nukes being plopped on cities horrifying? Of course they are thats what they are designed to do. The difference that Lib is unable to discern is that that nation states at war with each other are accountable for it, and terrorists arent.

Blah blah blah whitey nations arent accountable for nothing and so forth. when it comes to nations if one nation puts a ***** slap on another nation, the ***** slapped nation has the knowledge and ability to ***** slap the nation who thinks they are pimp back. aka USA vs Japan.

With terrorism however you have different dynamic. You have a small segement of the society, who orchestrates themselves to cause a measurable amount of civilian causalities(true its not as efficient in most cases) in the name of a people but without their clear approval or for any matter for any real gain for them.

Using Libs model where he says nations at war are no different from terrorist cause the tactics on the fluffy bunny scale register the same tummy ache level means that terrorists are a infact a nation state.

Im willing to concede that liberty doesnt know what he says, and hes desperately trying to say things to appear smart. If this is the case I will rest my case.

Terrorists can never be elivated to nations when it comes to wars. If Syria wants to admit that they were the asses behind a bloody attack on civilians, well then terrorists can hang in the nation arena. However, to liberties dismay, terrorists are cowards and their bellies will bare the scars of history.
be.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black


As an aside, "Jap" is just about as uncalled-for a term for Japanese people as the n-word is for black people.

Since you're bent on not being "PC," why don't you head down to Anacostia on Friday night and break out the n-word?


Please tell me you're kidding.



Please tell me that you don't really think that using the word jap is nearly as offensive as saying the "N" word.



Had I called them a trully racially derogatory name, I could see what you were saying, as it is though, your statement to me looks totally ignorant IMO.

[PokerPacker]

maybe thier called japs, because their JAPenese. brits are BRITtish, scots are SCOTtish... we just shorten names to the first syllable, its easier for us lazy americans to say.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by PokerPacker
maybe thier called japs, because their JAPenese. brits are BRITtish, scots are SCOTtish... we just shorten names to the first syllable, its easier for us lazy americans to say.


Thank you. I really didn't feel like explaining that.

[Chief skin]

Truman did what had to be done, he warned the japanese people, he warned the stubborn emperor Hirohito. The blame is on the emperor Hirohito, He started the d@mn war and he was warned that his cities would be bombed with such a blast that would level his cities. Even after Hiroshima he did not surrender Truman had to bomb Nagasaki to convince the stubborn jap. we need more politicians like Harry. I am an independent think both parties GOP and DEMS put the party first and nation second. Truman did waht was best for the country saved thousands of lives

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by luckydevil
Sure, if we compare the actions of our government compared to Japan's, we come out on top

But the “they were really bad, so it ok for us to be bad as well" type argument just doesn't sit well with me.

War doesn’t just grow out of thin air. Fundamentally, individuals are responsible for their own actions and atrocities are committed because someone decides to commit them. Politicians/soldiers are not immune from responsibility.

Truman deliberately targeted innocent people for political gain. That’s terrorism. Oh and being American doesnt change the fact

OK, you appear to acknowledge the atrocities carried out by the Japanese during the war. I'm assuming you are aware of the Japanese views of racial superiority, and their views of life through Samurai lenses, which among other things meant that was more honorable to die that to be captured. Which was one of the reasons they mistreated their prisoners so badly. It's easier to do when your prisoner is a dishonored sub-human.

You've mentioned several times that the Japanese had a surrender offer on the table when we nuked 'em. (You've also mentioned several times that Truman deliberately targeted civilians, and you have yet to acknowledge any military legitimacy the targets may have had, to that's easy to discount.) If that knowledge is so common, would you mind explaining the terms of surrender as they were proposed? I'm sure they'd be relevant.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Liberty


Now Thiebear, tell me of the instances in which you would use terrorism and which you wouldn't.

I wouldnt use Terrorism as I don't define terrorism as fighting back against someone who wants to kill millions of people.

That being said: I'd use your definition Terrorism against the Soviet Union if they started moving south to take over all of Europe/Asia.

I'd use your defintion of Terror against China if they took over India/Japan/Taiwan etc..

Other than that it would have to be an Alexander the Great/Napoleon/Hitler World Domination scenario.... Kinda like Germany/Japan WWII...

I watched the International History channel on it last night and saw your quotes.. I don't see where they were willing to give up without keeping the emporer.. Kinda like letting Hitler remain in charge of Germany right?

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Thiebear


I wouldnt use Terrorism as I don't define terrorism as fighting back against someone who wants to kill millions of people.

That being said: I'd use your definition Terrorism against the Soviet Union if they started moving south to take over all of Europe/Asia.

I'd use your defintion of Terror against China if they took over India/Japan/Taiwan etc..

Other than that it would have to be an Alexander the Great/Napoleon/Hitler World Domination scenario.... Kinda like Germany/Japan WWII...

I watched the International History channel on it last night and saw your quotes.. I don't see where they were willing to give up without keeping the emporer.. Kinda like letting Hitler remain in charge of Germany right?


tell me how are the two definitions are different

[The Showstopper]

terrorism starts war, this incident ended one, thats the diff liberty

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by The Showstopper
terrorism starts war, this incident ended one, thats the diff liberty

Nope

[The Showstopper]

Originally posted by Liberty


Nope

then tell the diff

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by The Showstopper


then tell the diff

There is no difference that was my point.

[Thiebear]

I define Terrorism to get a people to do what you want through fear and force ...

I define WWII and what the US did was to *STOP* Germany/Japan from Killing millions.

Stopping a Genocidal killer is not the same as being one.
Even if you use force on force. The world would be a different place if we had lost.

[The Showstopper]

Originally posted by Liberty


There is no difference that was my point.

yea well thats where your wrong, and you have no point so deal with it

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Thiebear
I define Terrorism to get a people to do what you want through fear and force ...

I define WWII and what the US did was to *STOP* Germany/Japan from Killing millions.

Stopping a Genocidal killer is not the same as being one.
Even if you use force on force. The world would be a different place if we had lost.

The war was won already, thiebear. There was no need for the nukes or even an invasion, the Japanese were thoroughly defeated, but even if they weren't defeated you would not have a problem with killing hundreds of thousands of civillians to die? Where do YOU draw the line? At what point do you become the genocidal killer?

[The Showstopper]

they never surrendered, so whos to say they wouldnt launch an offensive on u.s soil???? we did the right thing so face it

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by Chief skin
Truman did what had to be done, he warned the japanese people, he warned the stubborn emperor Hirohito. The blame is on the emperor Hirohito, He started the d@mn war and he was warned that his cities would be bombed with such a blast that would level his cities. Even after Hiroshima he did not surrender Truman had to bomb Nagasaki to convince the stubborn jap. we need more politicians like Harry. I am an independent think both parties GOP and DEMS put the party first and nation second. Truman did waht was best for the country saved thousands of lives

The same Hirohito that tried to surrender? That Hirohito?

Truman was going to use the bomb no matter what. He was facinated with it. Once he did, he IMMEDIATLY regretted it.

Blaming the Japanese citizens for Hiroshima is like blaming New Yorkers for 9-11. The people of New York have little control (or knowledge) of what their government does to people a zillion miles away. The Japanese people had NO control or say over what Hirohito or his generals did.

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by NavyDave
War is HELL

And armchair reveisionists who should be thanking God they are lucky to be born in this country just prove time and time again why liberals can't be trusted to defend the country or enforce the laws of the nation.

Yeah war is hell. Till they put Jews in the gas chamber, or torture Americans in POW camps. Then all of a sudden you liberals want to whine about "atrocities" and what not.

You're soft Navy Dave. War is hell!:doh:

[ntotoro]

Soft? Calling NavyDave soft is kind of like saying The Wiggles is a compelling and thought-provoking TV show... ;)

[Kilmer17]

Originally posted by ntotoro
Soft? Calling NavyDave soft is kind of like saying The Wiggles is a compelling and thought-provoking TV show... ;)

HOTPOTATO HOTPOTATO!!!

[ntotoro]

Exactly... :laugh:

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally posted by ntotoro
Soft? Calling NavyDave soft is kind of like saying The Wiggles is a compelling and thought-provoking TV show... ;)

He is soft. No more whining about 9-11. War is hell. Al Quieda did what they had to do. Navy Dave peacenik. War is hell.


And if you look at me funny? I'll peel your cap too...:laugh:

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by NavyDave
Now a lesson for the spineless politically correct types.

Jap short for Japanese or jewish american princess is not derogatory
Nip short for Nippon is not derogatory

The two major derogatory asian slurs are chink aimed at Chinese but ignorant aimed at all asians and Flip for people from the phillipines.

I was stationed in Northern Cal where it came of the lips of rednecks easily and constantly.


The kill em all and let god sort them out wouldn't have worked in Japan since the 'Nips" (didn't you watch McHale's Navy) didn't believe in God.

It is derogatory, it doesn't matter if you don't think so. Its like saying gook isn't derogatory because a lot of Koreans are named gook, or ****** isn't derogatory because it comes from negro which is spanish for black.

[BlueTalon]

Didn't this thread have something to do with the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima? (He asks, scratching his head...)

[Phat Hog]

Originally posted by BlueTalon
Didn't this thread have something to do with the atomic bomb being dropped on Hiroshima? (He asks, scratching his head...)

Ditto that...I think we made a wrong turn some 500 miles back...

[Rocky21]

Originally posted by Sarge
I know libs will spend the weekend in mourning, but I say "Good on ya Harry"

Originally posted by DjTj
[B]I imagine the tone of this thread would have been a lot friendlier if it hadn't started with this comment.

The day the bomb dropped should be a day of mourning, because the deaths of hundreds of thousands should not be something to celebrate. Like D-Day, it is a day that is commemorated, not celebrated.

For the end of the war with the Japanese, our day of celebration should be V-J Day, for that day marked the true end of the killing on both sides.

There is little use, I think, in bickering about the difficult decisions made by men that can no longer argue back.[/QUOTE]

Just got through all 14 pages in this thread. :whew:
DjTj had my favorite post.

[TheREALJBird]

Originally posted by Liberty


It is derogatory, it doesn't matter if you don't think so. Its like saying gook isn't derogatory because a lot of Koreans are named gook, or ****** isn't derogatory because it comes from negro which is spanish for black.

your jumping all over the place with your answers, calling dropping a bomb on a hostile country with every intent to eliminate us terrorism....you must've been a woodstock baby....

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Rocky21
The day the bomb dropped should be a day of mourning, because the deaths of hundreds of thousands should not be something to celebrate. Like D-Day, it is a day that is commemorated, not celebrated.

For the end of the war with the Japanese, our day of celebration should be V-J Day, for that day marked the true end of the killing on both sides.

Ya know, besides a few people on this thread, I've never heard about Hiroshima Day being celebrated (and even those people aren't going "whee! we dropped the bomb!") The day is noted, but not celebrated. Perhaps they throw parades in your neighborhood?

[PokerPacker]

we commemorate the lives of our troops, not the nazis

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by Liberty


It is derogatory, it doesn't matter if you don't think so. Its like saying gook isn't derogatory because a lot of Koreans are named gook, or ****** isn't derogatory because it comes from negro which is spanish for black.



I'll make it easy for those of you insulted by my use of the word "jap".

I don't really care if you're offended. So don't bother with the lecture.

How about sticking to the point of the thread.

We were just in dropping the bomb, plain and simple.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by PokerPacker
we commemorate the lives of our troops, not the nazis

Absolutely spectacular point.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by NavyDave
War is HELL

And armchair reveisionists who should be thanking God they are lucky to be born in this country just prove time and time again why liberals can't be trusted to defend the country or enforce the laws of the nation.


See, I agree with you guys on your view of the war, but your political smearing is laughable. You do realize that the man who guided us through the war was a liberal, right?

I mean, unless my history books were all wrong, FDR was a democrat, right?


Meaning Truman was also.

[MrSilverMaC]

And here's another question for those of you who oppose the bomb.


You all who oppose the use, to the very last one of you on this thread, keep stating that japan was beaten, and their was no need for either an invasion or the bomb.


So my question is this, since you say no more military action was needed against them, are you guys saying we could have stopped at Iwo Jima, simply steamed all our ships and flown all our troops back to the U.S at that point and had nothing more to worry about from japan?


That had we stopped dead in our tracks of our own accord, japan would have ceased all further hostilities, had we just gone home?


For your points to be valid, the only answer you can give would have to be yes.


I would love to see one of you actually say yes to this.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC
See, I agree with you guys on your view of the war, but your political smearing is laughable. You do realize that the man who guided us through the war was a liberal, right?

I mean, unless my history books were all wrong, FDR was a democrat, right?


Meaning Truman was also.

No doubt FDR was a liberal. (I'd still like to kick his butt for the mess he created in Social Security.) I don't know enough about Truman's policies to label him one way or the other.


But you have to admit, Democrats as a party, and liberalism as a mindset, has shifted dramatically since that time. Since JFK. Would those Democrats and liberals feel comfortable at all in today's party? Would today's liberals approach WWII in any way similar to the way they approached it then?

[70-chip]

Just a coupple of thoughts to throw in that if have already been touched upon in the many therads I apologize...too lazy to tired right now to go thru them all.

I think it is nearly impossible for us today to fully understand the military,political and social dynamics which all went into play with the decision to use the bomb.

At home we were extremely war weary. 64% of all casualties suffered during the war took place between 6/44 and 4/45. An invasion of the Japanese homeland would neccesitate large scale redeployment of already war weary troops. Truman was advised that the casualty figures would exceed 25k in the first 30 days. A figure that was already assumed by those at home. This was Combined with the growing numbers of reports concerning Japanese atrocities commited against US POW's. For example a few months prior to the bombings reports of the "Palawan Massacre"had reached the US public. As an attempt to keep prisoners from reaching enemy hands teh Japanese herded 150 men into an air raid shelter and set it on fire. Those who escaped in flames were subsequently machine gunned. Also,there was no indication that the Emperor was willing to step down and most Americans were in favor of uncoditional surrender however that was reached. Public sentiment was not lost on Truman.

Truman had a decision to make unlike any other in the history of mankind and given the difficulty it can never be underestimated. It is way to easy to sit here now and make judgement. Intelligence indicated thru decoded messages that the Japanese would have 900k troops in Kyushu(one of the invasion beaches). Suicide squads were being trained and planners were expecting 5k kamikaze which were being held back for the invasion. The emperor himself had taken personal interest in developing these defensive plans. The Japanese were most definitley intending on fighting to the death. Japanese military planners had been greatly motivated by the battle of Okinawa where a much smaller force had inflicted so many casualties in a defensive position.

Also the sentiment of our military planners had been jaded by the many years of large scale civilain bombing by both sided. This was looked uopn as just another large scale mass destruction raid only carried out by one plane with one bomb. Philip Morrison,a scientist who help construct the plutonium bomb later argued the bomb"was not a discontinuity. We were carrying on more of the same,only it was much cheaper...one bomb one city..for that war it was just one more city destroyed"

In regards to Nagasaki it was a secondary target because of smoke and cloud cover over teh industrial city of Kokura. An unheard of three bomb runs were attempted over Kokura untill fuel issues forced the choosing of a second target. And it is unfair to say the targets were chosen stricly to inflict civilian casualties. General Doolitle,who had been recently transfered from the ETO to prepare for the Japan invasion commented upon the return of Bockscar that General Spaatz would be far happier that the bomb went off where it did(a mile and a half from the center of the city)becasue there will be fewer casualties.

Bottom line there are way too many details that would have to be fully understood before one could condemn the bombings. And unless you lived thru those times and were experiencing thos things nobody can truely say it was wrong.

[MrSilverMaC]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


No doubt FDR was a liberal. (I'd still like to kick his butt for the mess he created in Social Security.) I don't know enough about Truman's policies to label him one way or the other.


But you have to admit, Democrats as a party, and liberalism as a mindset, has shifted dramatically since that time. Since JFK. Would those Democrats and liberals feel comfortable at all in today's party? Would today's liberals approach WWII in any way similar to the way they approached it then?


Mess he created in social security? Lol, would you rather have none at all?


And as far as "liberals" now, do you think they will have the same Ideals 60 years from now? I doubt it. I'm sure what is liberal now will be conservative then, and what is considered conservative now will be considered borderline facism.


FDR has to be the greatest U.S president by far in U.S history. And I doubt any since would have risen to the challenge of both the greatest economic crisis ever in the U.S, and the greatest human/ideological struggle to have ever happened in the history of the world.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by MrSilverMaC
Mess he created in social security? Lol, would you rather have none at all?

FDR has to be the greatest U.S president by far in U.S history. And I doubt any since would have risen to the challenge of both the greatest economic crisis ever in the U.S, and the greatest human/ideological struggle to have ever happened in the history of the world.


Social Security is a G**D***** pyramid. Yes, I'd rather not have it. Why the heck would I want a system like that, when that same money put in over the same time somewhere else would get me five to ten times the returns? How lousy does the system have to be if they won't let people opt out of it? He lied to the people by calling it "insurance", and then he had to explain to the Supreme Court that it wasn't really insurance. He singlehandedly created, or exponentially grew, dependency on government. You can consider that a success, if you'd like -- as a liberal, you probably will.

He could have addressed the issue differently, but he stuck us with that. The only reason he gets a pass is that the depression was as bad as it was. But we were going to pull out of it anyway.

I'd consider Reagan to be better than FDR. He cleaned up Carter's mess, which was the worst economic crisis since the depression. He won WWIII without firing a shot -- stemming the spread of communism, and stimulating the liberation of Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union represents victory in arguably "the greatest human/ideological struggle to have ever happened." (Keep in mind that FDR was kissy-kissy with Stalin. That ranks pretty low in the "winning the ideological struggle" category). Plus, he had values that align more closely with mine. Hence, I consider him to be better.



And as far as "liberals" now, do you think they will have the same Ideals 60 years from now? I doubt it. I'm sure what is liberal now will be conservative then, and what is considered conservative now will be considered borderline facism.

You dodged the questions. My questions were: Would those Democrats and liberals (JFK and prior) feel comfortable at all in today's party?
and: Would today's liberals approach WWII in any way similar to the way they approached it then?

[Rocky21]

Originally posted by PokerPacker
we commemorate the lives of our troops, not the nazis

Unless you're Ronald Reagan and you're in Bitburg, right?

[Predicto]

Originally posted by BlueTalon


Social Security is a G**D***** pyramid. Yes, I'd rather not have it. Why the heck would I want a system like that, when that same money put in over the same time somewhere else would get me five to ten times the returns? How lousy does the system have to be if they won't let people opt out of it? He lied to the people by calling it "insurance", and then he had to explain to the Supreme Court that it wasn't really insurance. He singlehandedly created, or exponentially grew, dependency on government. You can consider that a success, if you'd like -- as a liberal, you probably will.



Social Security is not the primary source of investment for you, I hope. The point of Social Security is not to provide you with an amazing return on your "investment." Your investments do that. The point of Social Security is to fund a minimal safety net for the elderly and disabled of our society, so that they do not become wards of the state or starve. It also was designed to cut off a growing socialist movement in this country by making people less fearful about their future. It gave (and continues to give) people faith that they will not be entirely destitute once they can no longer work. It has been a stunning success.




I'd consider Reagan to be better than FDR. He cleaned up Carter's mess, which was the worst economic crisis since the depression. He won WWIII without firing a shot -- stemming the spread of communism, and stimulating the liberation of Eastern Europe and the collapse of the Soviet Union represents victory in arguably "the greatest human/ideological struggle to have ever happened." (Keep in mind that FDR was kissy-kissy with Stalin. That ranks pretty low in the "winning the ideological struggle" category). Plus, he had values that align more closely with mine. Hence, I consider him to be better.



The Carter "malaise," which actually began with Richard Nixon (remember price controls and "Whip Inflation Now" buttons?) was hardly the Great Depression. And giving Reagan the credit for the internal collapse of the Soviet Union is like giving a surfer credit for the creation of a tidal wave.

Would you have had FDR flip off Stalin and laugh as the Nazis reached the oil wells in the Caucasus? Absent Stalin, Hitler would have won. Period. A poisonous Nazi empire would have stretched from France to Iran, Norway to Greece, fully self sustained in all natural resources. Being "kissy-kissy" with Stalin was the alternative.





You dodged the questions. My questions were: Would those Democrats and liberals (JFK and prior) feel comfortable at all in today's party?
and: Would today's liberals approach WWII in any way similar to the way they approached it then?

Yes. They would have. Union guys fought the Nazis and Japanese the same as management guys. There were extremists back then, guys like Huey Long, who sat on the fringes of the Democratic party and made people uncomfortable, but they were not "typical" of all liberals.

Perhaps you think that Jesse Jackson or the Berkeley City Council represent typical liberals. If you do think that, then allow me to think that Pat Robertson or David Duke is a "typical" conservative, and tar you with the same brush.

I am a liberal and I am proud of it. I also think that Truman was right to drop the bomb, that we were fully justified in going into Afganistan, that Yasser Arafat was a complete embarassment, that our government is way too large, and lots of other things that you assume are "non-liberal" positions. My grandfather was a Colonel in the Army, my father served, and I registered for the draft when my time came, and had I been called, I would have served too.

Political discourse in this country has degenerated to finger pointing and labelling your opponents as treehuggers" and "baby murderers" and worst of all: "LIBERALS." Thanks Rush. Thanks Hannity. Thanks Rove. You have made this country a far more thoughtful place.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Predicto
Social Security is not the primary source of investment for you, I hope. The point of Social Security is not to provide you with an amazing return on your "investment." Your investments do that. The point of Social Security is to fund a minimal safety net for the elderly and disabled of our society, so that they do not become wards of the state or starve. It also was designed to cut off a growing socialist movement in this country by making people less fearful about their future. It gave (and continues to give) people faith that they will not be entirely destitute once they can no longer work. It has been a stunning success.

Why should Social Security be ANY kind of investment for me? Its returns are abysmal, an its accounting practices are non-existant. In the two-and-a-half decades or so that I've been paying into the system, I've gotten maybe ten statements altogether -- and they don't tell me a precise amount of how much I have in there, they give me an estimate! If any other financial institution tried that, they'd be put out of business.

If we as a nation want to have a safety net for the disabled and elderly, we can do it with the budget, and without the whole Social Security structure. It's insane to have a whole seperate tax that I have to pay, the amount of which determines my eligibility for later returns, but which does not go into an account with my name on it. If it was going into a personal retirement account, that would make sense -- then it would be my money.

This is how insane the program is. If you die at age 60, and your three children are ages 35, 30 and 25, that means you've paid into it for 40 years or so and you get NOTHING. And your kids get NOTHING. If you think that's not insane, please explain. Whereas, if that same money had been put in a private account, your kids would have something.

Social Security is a pyramid. It was designed back when the pyramid had a nice wide base, and 14 people paid in for 1 person taking out. (Part of that had to do with the fact that the eligible age was after the average age of death. Some safety net.) But alas, the demographics have changed, and now that pyramid is awfully narrow. And it's getting narrower. The only way to change it is to go to some sort of private account, OR keep the system demographics-based like it is now, and raise taxes/reduce benefits/raise the retirement age, OR make families have lots more kids, and have our old people die younger.


It gave (and continues to give) people faith that they will not be entirely destitute once they can no longer work.

I don't know who you've been talking to, but younger people don't have faith in the system. Most of them are convinced the system will be bankrupt by the time they're eligible to get anything. And you've got nothing to offer them to convince them otherwise. Claiming that it's a stunning success doesn't have much of an impact on people who can connect the dots for themselves.


(Wait a minute -- this thread was about WWII and Hiroshima and Truman and FDR...)

AND IT'S ALL FDR'S FAULT!

[Sarge]

From my hometown newspaper. They're a little slow sometimes, but better late than never. My hometown was, up until a few years ago, a sleepy little town filled with old timers. When I was a kid, that was kind of a bummer. Little did I know, being a dumbassed kid, that I was living in the presense of greatness. See, those "Old timers" were the WWII generation. In the local schools it was pretty much mandatory at some point in the school year to interview one of those "dusty old guys" about their WWII experiences for history class.

My grandfather fought in the Paciifc as a medic. My great uncle went ashore at Normandy. Another fought in the Aluetians(sp)

They're not here anymore, but what I'd give to hear those stories again today. In place of those stories is this article interviewing some of the others that are still alive.

I think it tells the tale

http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab3.cfm?newsid=15014726&BRD=2553&PAG=461&dept_id=506079&rfi=6

VICTORY, plus 60 years: 'Thank God for the atomic bomb'
By J.J. Ebro
08/10/2005





The Enola Gay – a B-29 Superfortress that dropped the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945 – is on display at the Smithsonian’s Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center at Dulles Airport.
Their numbers are rapidly dwindling. The young men who once took the bayonet to the enemy are in their 80s, or nearly there.

Their eyesight, hearing and memories are dimming. But as they speak of their roles in defeating Japan and ending a World War 60 years ago this week, the jut of the jaw, the misty eye and a quiver in the voice convey the fact that while old soldiers may fade away, their pride and patriotism never die.


You won't see VJ Day (Victory over Japan) marked on many calendars these days. VE Day (Victory in Europe) had been accomplished three months earlier.


Japan was the last Axis power to fall. After two of Japan's largest cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki – were destroyed by the most powerful bombs ever dropped, Japanese Emperor Hirohito finally agreed to surrender. When President Truman announced the surrender on Aug. 15, 1945, the euphoria was felt worldwide.

On Sept. 2, 1945, Gen. Douglas MacArthur oversaw signing of the papers of surrender on the USS Missouri.

"We were laying out airstrips on Okinawa, preparing for the invasion of Japan when the [surrender] news came in," said Carlton Hughes, of Warrenton, who was a staff sergeant in the Army Air Corps. "Boy, were we relieved. The Japanese were tough fighters, wouldn't give up. We knew the invasion of Japan was going to be bloody.

"I was in college and got drafted on Dec. 12, 1941, after Pearl Harbor, so I went in," said Hughes, who wound up in aircraft maintenance and ground support. "I worked on all the big ones, B-17s, B-24s," Hughes said.

Stanley Caulkins, 79, who owns Caulkins Jewelry in Leesburg, was a gunner and radio operator on a B-17 Flying Fortress with the 96th Bomber Group in Europe.

He still carries a laminated photo of "5 Grand," so named for being the 5,000th B-17 off the Boeing assembly line.

Enlisting just five days after his 18th birthday, he completed training and sailed into Glasgow, Scotland, in early January 1945. Between that date and the war's end in Europe in May, "5 Grand" flew 19 combat missions.

"By the time I got there, the war in the air was pretty much over. The low-level bombing which the Allies conducted on the oil fields and refineries in Romania had deprived the Germans of fuel for their aircraft. They still had fighters, but they were all grounded," Caulkins said.

When combat in Europe ended, "5 Grand" did mercy missions repatriating POWs and bringing food to the Netherlands.

"The fighting was over but we could see the civilians still undergoing all the rigors and pain," Caulkins said. "There was no food, everybody was starving. Nobody had planted anything for five years and all the livestock had been killed or eaten."



Enola Gay

As Caulkins' unit transitioned into an occupation role in defeated Germany, speculation was rife that the bombers and other strategic units would soon be diverted to the conflict against the Japanese.

"We were on the Riviera. We had just ferried some fighter pilots over for some R&R when we heard about one huge bomb being dropped on Japan that had destroyed a whole city" – the atomic bomb dropping on Hiroshima.

"At that time, it was incomprehensible," Caulkins said. "We didn't know what they were talking about. A few days later, we heard Japan had surrendered and everybody was so relieved the war was over."

The Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, is seen by WWII vets, particularly those who fought in the Pacific theater, as an angel of mercy and just retribution. It stands on display today at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum's Udvar-Hazy complex near Washington Dulles International Airport.

"Thank God for the atomic bomb," Leesburg resident Anthony Stasio said. "My one regret is we didn't drop 10 of them. It saved a lot of American lives. It would have been a disaster if we had tried to invade Japan. They still had a million-man army in Manchuria that they would have brought over to defend the homeland.

"Around this time [the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing], the television studios will usually air some sort of mea culpa or another about the use of the atomic bomb. They'll show footage of the devastation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. I call them up and ask them to show pictures of the Bataan Death March, the bayoneting of defenseless POWs, what the Japanese did in Singapore, the massacres in China. They never do," he said, his anger apparent.

Stasio enlisted in the Marines at 17 "after I saw the movie about Wake Island and thought: 'What a classy bunch of guys they were.'"

To enlist, he had to get his parents' permission. "It broke Momma's heart, but my father understood. He had lied to get into World War I. He was only 16, the son of Italian immigrants," he said.

"Marine training was tough, but I was well-prepared. I had an Italian mother. You didn't get away with anything. There was a lot of love, but there was firmness," he said.



Tropical war

Stasio found the training and fortitude served him well in the Solomon Islands, a chain of tiny land masses in the southern Pacific, north of Australia and New Zealand.

"I was in a unit of the 2nd Marine Division that was brought in to reinforce the 1st Marines for Guadalcanal. It wasn't so bad to get on the beach, but it was very intense in the jungle. It certainly wasn't a Dorothy Lamour-type of tropical island. We were so well-trained, we just knew how to respond in actual combat," Stasio said.

In August 1942, U.S. troops along with allies from Pacific nations landed on Guadalcanal in the Solomons for their first major offensive against Japanese troops. Fierce fighting raged until February 1943.

After the 'Canal, Stasio's unit was pulled back to New Zealand for rest, recuperation, training and re-equipping. "We were using the ’03 Springfield bolt-action rifle until that time. These were replaced with the semi-auto Garand rifles. We loved them."

Stasio and other Marines put the Garand rifles to the test in the attack on Tarawa, a tiny atoll where the Japanese were dug in. The attack on Tarawa was "very short, very fierce – and we just flat out whipped them to death," he said, noting that it was over in 76 hours.

The fighting was at close quarters and often hand to hand. "They told us to charge up a hill and take an enemy position and we just did it. I did crazy things that you do when you are 17 and don't know any better. The Marines just love 17- and 18-year-old guys for that reason," he said.

Almost all the 5,000-strong Japanese garrison on the island perished, a number of them from suicidal banzai charges. The Marines lost 1,000 killed and 2,000 wounded. Stasio was among the latter. Hit in the leg, and suffering from malaria and dysentery, he was shipped back to Hawaii for treatment.

"You name any disease you can find in the tropics, I got it." From there, he was sent on to California and then stationed in Bethesda, Md. "On Aug. 14, we were ordered to establish a security perimeter around the White House and that is when I heard about the Japanese surrender," he said.



From beginning to end

Bob Riddell, of Casanova, joined the Marines as a 2nd lieutenant in 1939, just 21 and out of college. He was at Pearl Harbor when the Japanese launched their surprise attack on Dec. 7, 1941. Assigned to the battleship Pennsylvania, he was at his duty station in the crow's nest, "and had the best view of all the Japanese planes bombing and strafing," Riddell said.

Much later, when the Marines were taking the fight to the enemy, Riddell participated in the battle for Iwo Jima. As he worked on the beach, Riddell said, “We were just ducking, mostly, because the Japanese were firing on us from [Mount] Suribachi. Then, the firing stopped and I saw our flag going up. That was a really proud moment" – immortalized as the Marine Monument in Arlington.

When Iwo was finally secured on March 16, 1945, after close to a month of fighting, nearly 7,000 Americans were dead and 20,000 wounded. The Japanese defenders, numbering 21,000, died practically to the man. Riddell was awarded the Bronze Star for his courageous actions on Iwo Jima.

"We were damned happy to hear about the atomic bomb dropping and the Japanese surrender. We knew we were scheduled to invade Japan. It was like we had received a reprieve."



Forged by the Depression

The toughness of the men and women later dubbed the "Greatest Generation" was forged during the Depression of the 1930s.

"It was a great experience to grow up in the Depression," former Marine Stasio said. "If one didn't work, one didn't have money. There was no welfare to fall back on. People also looked out for one another. They helped each other. We didn't have money. We were always at home. We had a strong home life. It was character-building and it helped the U.S. mobilize for the war."

With most men off to war, the "Rosie the Riveter" phenomenon brought large numbers of women into the industrial workforce and other jobs previously reserved for men. This had a profound effect on the women's rights movement of subsequent generations.

After WWII, the GI Bill afforded returning veterans the opportunity to obtain higher education, which, combined with the massive industrial capacity built up to support the war, resulted in the largest economic expansion in history.

"It was the finest piece of legislation ever passed," Stasio said. "Just in income taxes alone, the government got back several times over what it had spent on college tuition."

"Scraping through college on a Hail Mary and a novena," Stasio became an accountant and landed a job with the Small Business Administration. He moved up the ladder in that organization.

In the 1980s he entered politics in Chincoteague, first as a councilman and then as mayor. He moved to Leesburg in 1989 to be near his grandchildren.

"We live in the greatest country in the world. America provides opportunity and freedom, not just here but all over the world," Stasio said "When we go someplace like Germany or Japan, or like Iraq, it's not to take them over but to give them democracy. I feel for our young people now fighting in Iraq. I'm so proud of them and the job they're doing."

[Spaceman Spiff]

Sarge was the kid tearing down the street in that sleepy town with a swarm of bees after him cause he threw rocks at their nests ;)

way to bring back this thread! ;) jk

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff
Sarge was the kid tearing down the street in that sleepy town with a swarm of bees after him cause he threw rocks at their nests ;)

way to bring back this thread! ;) jk

Otherwise known as "That Damned Kid".

The bad part about a small town was that every adult knew each other, or knew of each other. You couldn't get away with anything because someone would always say, "You're Jerome's boy, aren't you?"


And you knew the gig was up:laugh:

[luckydevil]

Social Security is not the primary source of investment for you, I hope. The point of Social Security is not to provide you with an amazing return on your "investment." Your investments do that. The point of Social Security is to fund a minimal safety net for the elderly and disabled of our society, so that they do not become wards of the state or starve.

But here's the thing Predicto, many people do view SS as the primary source of investment. The tragic thing about the welfare state is it creates a false sense of security and ultimately a false sense of entitlement.

Your post illustrates the basic fallacy of the welfare state, it subsidizes what it seeks to prevent or cure. Many people are indeed wards of the state, because of SS.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by luckydevil


But here's the thing Predicto, many people do view SS as the primary source of investment. The tragic thing about the welfare state is it creates a false sense of security and ultimately a false sense of entitlement.

Your post illustrates the basic fallacy of the welfare state, it subsidizes what it seeks to prevent or cure. Many people are indeed wards of the state, because of SS.

I do not agree, because the alternatives are worse. The tragic thing about the non-welfare state is that the elderly and disabled of modest means are totally hosed unless they have kids who can take care of them.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Predicto


I do not agree, because the alternatives are worse. The tragic thing about the non-welfare state is that the elderly and disabled of modest means are totally hosed unless they have kids who can take care of them.

That's what used to happen, and still does in a lot of countries

[luckydevil]

I do not agree, because the alternatives are worse. The tragic thing about the non-welfare state is that the elderly and disabled of modest means are totally hosed unless they have kids who can take care of them.

I am sorry, but that's not true. Mutual aid societies/ Private Friendly Societies were once very prominent in this country. The church used to have even more bigger and positive role in the community. In some parts of the country, Churches used to routinely reject aid (because they felt too much aid encourage dependency- they were right by the way)


Sadly, today the church is just another lobbyist group.

[Ignatius J.]

luckidevil,

I'm having trouble reconciling your position in this thread with your position in the gas tax thread. You think a wellfare state is okay if it helps pay for your car, but not if it helps a grandmother get medication? Or afford rent?

nice.

[luckydevil]

I'm having trouble reconciling your position in this thread with your position in the gas tax thread. You think a wellfare state is okay if it helps pay for your car,

no, not sure how you arrived at that conclusion

All I said was that if you wanted to decrease gas prices, you can cut gasoline taxes

[Ignatius J.]

so then I can pay for your roads. You want me to pay for your roads, which is the defintion of a wellfare state.

[luckydevil]

so then I can pay for your roads. You want me to pay for your roads, which is the defintion of a wellfare state.

I should have been more clear. Welfare as in money paid by the government to people who are in need of financial assistance.*

But while we are on the subject of roads...... yes I would like to ultimately leave roads in the hands of the private sector

*A set of government programs that attempts to provide economic security for the population by providing for people when they are unemployed, ill, or elderly.(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/w.html)

Like this definition better

[Ignatius J.]

I think that's a pretty convenient definition for you. whatever, i don't care about symantics. Your second paragraph at least seems interesting. But, we know that's not going to happen. If you're only against the tax because it keeps us from privatising all roads, then who am I to judge, but if under the current circumstances you want to lower gas tax, you ought to rethink your position on wellfare.

edit: I think it's funny that a thread about so many people dying in the course of seconds inevitably turns to gas taxes.

[luckydevil]

I think that's a pretty convenient definition for you. whatever, i don't care about symantics.

Is that your way of saying....................... I was wrong.

I am fairly confident that most economists and economic books would agree with my definition.


But, we know that's not going to happen.

Not anytime soon, but maybe one day

Otherwise, I don't understand the hostility. I am fan of your contribution on this board, so the hostility is bit disappointing to say the least.

[Ignatius J.]

well it's a drunken hostility, so don't take it too personally.

There are real arguments against certain forms of taxation, but in the present climate, there is no responsible way to get rid of the gas tax. All I'm sayin'.

[luckydevil]

well it's a drunken hostility,

been there, done that :)

[70-chip]

This is why any vet who fought in the PTO will never regret dropping the bombs.

BATAAN (http://www.battleofbataan.com/story.html)

You should also read up on the Japanese death ships.....

[Predicto]

Originally posted by luckydevil


I am sorry, but that's not true. Mutual aid societies/ Private Friendly Societies were once very prominent in this country. The church used to have even more bigger and positive role in the community. In some parts of the country, Churches used to routinely reject aid (because they felt too much aid encourage dependency- they were right by the way)


Sadly, today the church is just another lobbyist group.

And I'm sorry but that's a convenient myth. Such societies did exist, but they did not even come close to providing a safety net for a fraction of the people we are talking about.

[Predicto]

Originally posted by Sarge


That's what used to happen, and still does in a lot of countries

And that is another reason that those countries suck, and America rules!!!!!!

YOu don't want to follow the example of other countries, do you Sarge? :D

[SkinsHokieFan]

Nice read there Sarge

I still pop in my "Band of Brothers" DVD's every now and then and am just amazed at what those guys were able to do, in the prime of their life

[Sarge]

Originally posted by SkinsHokieFan
Nice read there Sarge

I still pop in my "Band of Brothers" DVD's every now and then and am just amazed at what those guys were able to do, in the prime of their life

I love the one quote, "I wish we had dropped 10 of them"

Pretty much dispels the thoughts and made up revisonist history of the peace weenies that are around today that it was an evil act

[Larry]

Originally posted by Sarge
I love the one quote, "I wish we had dropped 10 of them"

Pretty much dispels the thoughts and made up revisonist history of the peace weenies that are around today that it was an evil act

Yep.

One 60-year-old quote of support certainly proves that the deaths of thousands of unarmed civilians was a Good Thing.

[joe]

Sorry to disappoint you Sarge, but as someone who considers himself left of center, I think that you should know that I believe that dropping the bomb was a very necessary act. I have read a great deal on this subject, including the plans for the invasion of Japan and there is no question that many many lives, both japanese and american were saved.

It is interesting to note that there was no real decision to drop the bomb. It was pretty much a foregone conclusion that we were going to use the weapon if we were able to develop it. Once it was ready, they just let it fly.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Larry
One 60-year-old quote of support certainly proves that the deaths of thousands of unarmed civilians was a Good Thing.

Larry, in your estimation, how many "unarmed civilians" would have died if there had been an invasion of the Japanese main islands?

Our options were:
A: Drop the bomb, and hope for a quick end to the war.
B: Invade.
C: There is no C!!!

[Larry]

Originally posted by BlueTalon
Larry, in your estimation, how many "unarmed civilians" would have died if there had been an invasion of the Japanese main islands?

Our options were:
A: Drop the bomb, and hope for a quick end to the war.
B: Invade.
C: There is no C!!!

(In your opinion).

(And mine, too. I don't believe in second-guessing decision makers by examining their decisions in the light of information they didn't posess. (It's not fair to complain that the Skins shouldn't have tried a field goal after the kick misses.) I think the judgement of history (or the judgement of Larry) should be based on the information available at the time. And I honestly believe that the people involved thought those were the options, and should be judged accordingly. I'm also pointing out, though, that every single alternative being presented including invasion is simply a "what if?")

[Predicto]

Originally posted by joe
Sorry to disappoint you Sarge, but as someone who considers himself left of center, I think that you should know that I believe that dropping the bomb was a very necessary act. I have read a great deal on this subject, including the plans for the invasion of Japan and there is no question that many many lives, both japanese and american were saved.



Same here. Sorry Sarge.

[AlexRS]

Our options were:
A: Drop the bomb, and hope for a quick end to the war.
B: Invade.
C: There is no C!!!


Wrong.

C: Drop the bomb on a MILITARY TARGET
D: Drop the bomb on a less populated area

[Larry]

E. Keep bombing them, and wait for the civilians to get tired of this.

F. Wait for Russia, now that they're not fighting Germans, to decide that they're rather ticked at the Japanese, too.

G. Wait and see if China decides that they're ticked at Japan, too.

(Note to Japanese people who're ticked at the US for using The Bomb: Had we decided to use option G, there's a chance that y'all'd be living in Tibet, and speaking Chinese, now.)

In short, there are (and were) lots of other options. And without a time machine, nobody knows what things would look like, now.

I'm content with the history we've got.

[Henry]

F. Wait for Russia, now that they're not fighting Germans, to decide that they're rather ticked at the Japanese, too.

That's the one that scares me the most. I don't think some people in this thread realize we needed Japan to surrender, and surrender immediately. The Soviets were licking their chops at Japan and we needed the war to be over before they could 'help' us invade and then occupy the Country. There are a lot of reasons I agree with Truman's decision, and that's a big one right there.

[SkinsFTW]

Originally posted by Henry


That's the one that scares me the most. I don't think some people in this thread realize we needed Japan to surrender, and surrender immediately. The Soviets were licking their chops at Japan and we needed the war to be over before they could 'help' us invade and then occupy the Country. There are a lot of reasons I agree with Truman's decision, and that's a big one right there.

Not to mention the fact that if we had gone with the ground war the war would have gone on for a long time and Millions would have died. Also Japan would have used biological and chemical warfare in their own country to stop us.

This link pretty much tells the story of who we were dealing with there..

http://www.skycitygallery.com/japan/japan.html

[BlueTalon]

I really believe it took the bomb to shock the Japanese out of their paradigm. (Alex, there were legitimate military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whether you care to admit it or not.) The Japanese worldview was such that they believed the emperor was God, that Japanese people were superior, and that whereas it was an honor to die in battle, it was a dishonor to surrender.

Had there been no bomb, had the war continued to have been fought by conventional means, there could not have been that same sudden shock. And the Japanese people were nothing if not tenacious. The emporer would have maintained his deity status longer, and the casualties on both sides would have been tremendous.

And as Henry pointed out, the Soviets were headed that way as well. So not only would we have far more casualties all around, right now we'd be looking at the reconciliation of a Japan that was divided, much like Europe.

[Larry]

Originally posted by Henry
That's the one that scares me the most. I don't think some people in this thread realize we needed Japan to surrender, and surrender immediately. The Soviets were licking their chops at Japan and we needed the war to be over before they could 'help' us invade and then occupy the Country. There are a lot of reasons I agree with Truman's decision, and that's a big one right there.

I tossed that scenario out as a pure hypothetical. Let's face it, it would've taken the Russians how long to move their army accross Siberia in enough force to support an invasion of Japan? And it would've required them to strip how much of the forces they were using to consolodate their occupation of Europe?

Heck, thay would've had to build entire cities on their east coast, just to provide infrastructure and support for the effort.

And the Japanese would've seen them comming. And might've surrendered.

Difficult to see, the future is. (Even in the past.)

OTOH, I can certainly see Stalin deciding that the possibility of a warm water port with access to the Pacific and Indian Oceans would be worth some serious "investments".

I think it's safe to say that if that scenario had come about, the world map would be a lot different, today.

[BlueTalon]

Originally posted by Larry


I tossed that scenario out as a pure hypothetical. Let's face it, it would've taken the Russians how long to move their army accross Siberia in enough force to support an invasion of Japan? And it would've required them to strip how much of the forces they were using to consolodate their occupation of Europe?

Heck, thay would've had to build entire cities on their east coast, just to provide infrastructure and support for the effort.

And the Japanese would've seen them comming. And might've surrendered.

Difficult to see, the future is. (Even in the past.)

OTOH, I can certainly see Stalin deciding that the possibility of a warm water port with access to the Pacific and Indian Oceans would be worth some serious "investments".

I think it's safe to say that if that scenario had come about, the world map would be a lot different, today.

You're making the assumption that ALL of the Soviet military was in Europe, or at least not free enough to utilize for the purpose. I remind you that they had enough forces available to take four of the Kurile Islands, which are still in dispute. Given another month or two or four, or a year, they would certainly have occupied more than those four islands.

[skinfan13]

Because the use of the bombs was unnecessary

A war crime, plain and simple what was the sensless torturing of inocent civilians by the japs huh? what was the baton death march? what is a war crime to you? the bomb may have killed but it did save american and japanese lives. before you reply to that hear me out;

the military did a comprehensive study in 44 about the economic, environmental, and life losses in an invasion of japan. the invasion would have killed 2 times as many civilians as both bombings combined. it would have killed 12 times as many japanese military personel and in american life cost it would have been 19600 times greater than the 62 americans who were in hiroshima when the bomb dropped. lives saved Vs. lost? id say the true atrocity would have been the invasion.

lets talk the economic aspects. lets put it this way, japan would have been absolutley destroyed in an invasion. imagine the US during the great depression but worse and for longer. their country could no longer produce anything worth exporting and would have to import alot of things nessecary for survival to individuals. it would be a mess.

the environment? imagine chared landscapes devoid of beauty, farmland destryed no longer to season crops. imagine the no-zones of WWI all over what used to be a beautiful country.

granted the bomb was terrible, it killed alot of inocent people but it was the lesser of two evils. one city would have been enough, or even a demonstration off the shore, but some action other than invasion was nescesary, and in the long run it was the right choice. the best we can do is remember those that died so that many more could live and a great economic aly of the united states today would remain around do it could become that.

but to say it was a war crime is blown out of proportion, if that is a war crime what do you call the treatment of the japs prisoners and how they treated their concured peoples??? just curious. (dont you even bring up the japanese american detainments, its not even remotly comparable, and dont you DARE compare that to the concentration camps of germany)

[AbleDanger]

Because the use of the bombs was unnecessary

A war crime, plain and simple
The bomb saved far more lives than it killed.

[PleaseBlitz]

The bomb saved far more lives than it killed.


Probably by a factor of 10 or more.

[RedskinDan0557]

At the time it was a necessary evil. Thank you Harry.

Signed

Lib