0
airdvr

Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years later

Recommended Posts

Hi Jeanne,

Quote

I believe our leaders believed the mainland of Japan would be tragic for our Marines and Army personnel as well as millions of Japanese.



When asked how many American lives would be lost in an invasion of Japan, MacArthur said one million. Of all the generals & admirals in WW II, MacArthur had the best track record on predicting casualties. I have read that this is what convinced Truman to proceed with the A-bombs.

Oh, and that the Japanese were truly hated by the US at that time; moreso than just being the enemy.

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen

Hi Jeanne,

Quote

I believe our leaders believed the mainland of Japan would be tragic for our Marines and Army personnel as well as millions of Japanese.



When asked how many American lives would be lost in an invasion of Japan, MacArthur said one million. Of all the generals & admirals in WW II, MacArthur had the best track record on predicting casualties. I have read that this is what convinced Truman to proceed with the A-bombs.

Oh, and that the Japanese were truly hated by the US at that time; moreso than just being the enemy.

Jerry Baumchen



I seem to recall that Churchill, during the Battle of Britain, made reference to how many young men the Germans had lost that day.

Halsey reported how many of the "little yellow bastards" they had "splashed" in a given encounter.

After witnessing Banzai charges and Kamikaze attacks, the general consensus among the American troops and sailors was "those people are seriously fucked up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>The Japanese may have offered terms for surrender but the conditions
>established in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences by the Allies rejected any
>terms offered by Germany and/or Japan. The terms TO Germany and Japan
>were simple and direct; unconditional surrender.

Agreed, and Japan was offering surrender with no conditions other than retaining the emperor. That, however, is quite different than "there was no way to end the war - and save millions of US soldliers - other than dropping those bombs." In fact we could have ended it before that with an end result very similar to the result we achieved. We didn't want to.

>There has been much debate about the bombing of Japanese cities. The
>Japanese dispersed a lot of their industries supporting the military into the
>cities and in particular, the homes of its citizens. It was not uncommon for
>military uniforms or rifle bullets to be manufactured in private homes and the
>result is that the home becomes a legitimate military target that can be
>destroyed by opposing forces under the terms of laws of war, Geneva
>Convention.

How is that different from what we did? Posters of the time exhorted everyone to support the war effort. Almost every town in the US had programs that collected scrap iron, paper and rubber for the military effort, and war bond efforts were in full swing. Many of these programs were run out of local schools. Does that mean that US schools were legitimate military targets under the laws of war? I have a feeling we would disagree.

We could have chosen a military target - but we wanted to send a very clear signal to Russia over what we could do to a city.




At the time? Yes. Civilians were fair game as military targets. Merchant Marines were civilians. And the US just built ships faster than the Germans could sink them. Germans sent buzz bombs. The Blitz was not directed at military targets. The Japanese didn't just hit Chinese military - it's called the Rape of Nanking for a reason.

We are judging the actions through the ethos of today versus then. More people were killed in Tokyo than in Hiroshima. But that doesn't get the news. Dresden, as well as other places, we're leveled. The US woukd blow up dams and the civilians in the way wouLd just be part of the casualties. If the plants are destroyed and the workers are dead or maimed then the factories stop working.

Civilian populations have been considered legitimate targets through history. And still are. Are you reading this? Odds are there is a warhead targeted to hit within 30 miles of you. Mutually Assured Destruction was not a scenario predicated on tactical nukes hitting military bases.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my eyes it was justified action.

One they attacked us This is the most important one to me, a reason lacking in many of our other wars

Two they were willing to die literally jump of cliffs other then surrender

Three they had a fascist view where the only true world was a Japanese world. You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Darius11

You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.



Name any belligerent in any conflict, anywhere, anytime, and on either side, that this statement (opinion) cannot also be used to support their justification as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aphid

***You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.



Name any belligerent in any conflict, anywhere, anytime, and on either side, that this statement (opinion) cannot also be used to support their justification as well.

Specially now, when any compromise is seen as weakness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

******You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.



Name any belligerent in any conflict, anywhere, anytime, and on either side, that this statement (opinion) cannot also be used to support their justification as well.

Specially now, when any compromise is seen as weakness.

You mean like Sadam, because. . . . I was thinking that he gets defended here in SC by default by all the bush hating lobs here more than any villan I know of.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

However, it would have been feasible to just blockade the island and starve it into submission over a period of years.



What have we learned in the recent past about protracted war? It's bad.

Quote

IMHO, 'the bomb' was more of a shock-and-awe event to not only Japan but the entire world.



Ya damn right. The first one was for Japan and the second one was the statement to the world and particularly the USSR, "We have more and we can make more and we will use them to stop this war."

Problem was, through Klaus Fuchs, the Soviets already new we had the the bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlespeed

*********You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.



Name any belligerent in any conflict, anywhere, anytime, and on either side, that this statement (opinion) cannot also be used to support their justification as well.

Specially now, when any compromise is seen as weakness.

You mean like Sadam, because. . . . I was thinking that he gets defended here in SC by default by all the bush hating lobs here more than any villan I know of.

I can't speak for Dekker, but you surely lost me with your post. I don't understand what point you are trying to make relative to the two quoted pieces. Can you elaborate for my edification?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airdvr

Necessary or not?



My great uncle served aboard the USS Pensacola in the Pacific during WWII. See link for details.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pensacola_(CA-24)

He fought in several important naval battles, including at Iwo Jima and Okinawa. He didn't see any sign of the Japanese giving up, in fact, his observation was the closer they got to the Japanese mainland the harder and more desperate they fought.

At Iwo Jima his ship was providing cover for the mine sweepers the day before the landing and took fire and direct hits from guns on Mt. Suribachi. In a single instant, his commanding officer and another close friend died from one of those hits and the ship had 114 men injured. The next day the invasion of Iwo Jima began.

In the next battle at Okinawa, Japan packed planes full of explosives and sent them on suicide missions to ram into ships. Nothing from what he observed first hand indicated Japan was going to surrender.

The emperor might have written a letter here or there, but he wasn't the one fighting. And the ones that were fighting didn't show any signs of giving up. From his perspective the sooner the war ended the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That was my understanding as well. The fighting in the Pacific was so bloody that when it came to mainland Japan they said 'hell no we are NOT doing this again.'



It was indeed bloody, but the Japanese tactics were getting smarter and more bloody for the Americans the closer they got to Japan. Many people considered Iwo Jima the test for how Japan was going to fight on the mainland, and the result was lay in wait and ambush from pill boxes and well hidden and fortified tunnels, instead of the ineffective bonsai charge out in the open. Nobody surrendered at Iwo Jima.

At Okinawa, they added Kamikaze planes into that mix. It wasn't going to get any easier.

Quote

However, it would have been feasible to just blockade the island and starve it into submission over a period of years.



Blockading would not have been easy. At any moment, a Kamikaze plane or submarine could attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aphid

************You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.



Name any belligerent in any conflict, anywhere, anytime, and on either side, that this statement (opinion) cannot also be used to support their justification as well.

Specially now, when any compromise is seen as weakness.

You mean like Sadam, because. . . . I was thinking that he gets defended here in SC by default by all the bush hating lobs here more than any villan I know of.

I can't speak for Dekker, but you surely lost me with your post. I don't understand what point you are trying to make relative to the two quoted pieces. Can you elaborate for my edification?

The belligerent in the latest conflict that was/is Iraq, was Sadam Husain.
But now, because the left hates Bush so bad, Sadam is retroactively de-villified.

And I see that as a serious compromise.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Sadam is retroactively de-villified



I don't see that. SH was bad, no doubt about it. Problem is that what we have now is worse.

By removing a bad person under extremely questionable pretenses, things have gotten much worse.

WHich all has nothing to do with the attitude these days that any compromise is seen as weakness. (which doesn't mean everything has to be compromised either)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlespeed

***************You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.



Name any belligerent in any conflict, anywhere, anytime, and on either side, that this statement (opinion) cannot also be used to support their justification as well.

Specially now, when any compromise is seen as weakness.

You mean like Sadam, because. . . . I was thinking that he gets defended here in SC by default by all the bush hating lobs here more than any villan I know of.

I can't speak for Dekker, but you surely lost me with your post. I don't understand what point you are trying to make relative to the two quoted pieces. Can you elaborate for my edification?

The belligerent in the latest conflict that was/is Iraq, was Sadam Husain.
But now, because the left hates Bush so bad, Sadam is retroactively de-villified.

And I see that as a serious compromise.

Revisionist history from the turtle.

Iraq's last act of belligerence was July 22, 1990 when Saddam began deploying troops to the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border, followed by invasion on August 2. this was done with implicit approval from US Ambassador April Glaspie (Bush 1 appointee).

The US was the clear belligerent in 2003. Saddam had done or threatened nothing.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlespeed

***************You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.



Name any belligerent in any conflict, anywhere, anytime, and on either side, that this statement (opinion) cannot also be used to support their justification as well.

Specially now, when any compromise is seen as weakness.

You mean like Sadam, because. . . . I was thinking that he gets defended here in SC by default by all the bush hating lobs here more than any villan I know of.

I can't speak for Dekker, but you surely lost me with your post. I don't understand what point you are trying to make relative to the two quoted pieces. Can you elaborate for my edification?

The belligerent in the latest conflict that was/is Iraq, was Sadam Husain.
But now, because the left hates Bush so bad, Sadam is retroactively de-villified.

And I see that as a serious compromise.

Ah, I think I understand now.

I used belligerent as a noun; a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.

Evidently you and others that followed you interpreted belligerent as an adjective; hostile and aggressive.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aphid

******************You cant argue logic with any group of people who think they are better then others and are willing to kill for it.



Name any belligerent in any conflict, anywhere, anytime, and on either side, that this statement (opinion) cannot also be used to support their justification as well.

Specially now, when any compromise is seen as weakness.

You mean like Sadam, because. . . . I was thinking that he gets defended here in SC by default by all the bush hating lobs here more than any villan I know of.

I can't speak for Dekker, but you surely lost me with your post. I don't understand what point you are trying to make relative to the two quoted pieces. Can you elaborate for my edification?

The belligerent in the latest conflict that was/is Iraq, was Sadam Husain.
But now, because the left hates Bush so bad, Sadam is retroactively de-villified.

And I see that as a serious compromise.

Ah, I think I understand now.

I used belligerent as a noun; a nation or person engaged in war or conflict, as recognized by international law.

Evidently you and others that followed you interpreted belligerent as an adjective; hostile and aggressive.

Thank you.

Re reading it, I see what you meant.
It does change my response a bit. If I have time I'll reply later.
Thanks
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The belligerent in the latest conflict that was/is Iraq, was Sadam Husain.



Uhhh, explain?

Quote

But now, because the left hates Bush so bad, Sadam is retroactively de-villified.



Uhhh, prove it?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>But now, because the left hates Bush so bad, Sadam is retroactively de-villified.

I haven't seen anyone "de-vilify" Saddam. He was a villain; merely one that was useful to the US.



One thing that struck me a long time ago was that putting a vicious despot in charge of a social shithole is about the best you can do with said locale.

When Tito was running Yugoslavia we were all kinds of mad at him, and could hardly wait until he was gone. After he went to heaven, we found out that he was the best thing that could have happened to the Balkans at the time.

I was in Spain when Franco was running the show. It was considered a BAD CAREER MOVE to behave in a manner perceived as criminal; the few people who did so served as examples for those who were considering similar misbehavior. After Franco's demise, many potential criminals breathed a sigh of relief and reverted to type.

Under the Shah Iran flourished, when he left they turned their clocks back a few centuries. The guys in charge now make Savak look good.

Anyhow, given all that, only a fucking idiot would have wanted to remove Saddam Hussein from power, since the outcome was inevitable.

Enter George W. Bush.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee

Quote

The belligerent in the latest conflict that was/is Iraq, was Sadam Husain.



Uhhh, explain?

Quote

But now, because the left hates Bush so bad, Sadam is retroactively de-villified.



Uhhh, prove it?



Really?

How could I ever do that in a way that would even remotely satisfy you. You would have to change your mind, and well, we all know the likelihood of that.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Really?



Yeah, really.

Quote

How could I ever do that in a way that would even remotely satisfy you.



Pretty easily, really. First, explain how Saddam was the belligerent. That's pretty self explanatory, I don't know how to make the question any clearer.

Second, find some posts on here with people saying that Saddam wasn't that bad a guy. It should be easy, if you're not making it up.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jakee

Quote

Really?



Yeah, really.

Quote

How could I ever do that in a way that would even remotely satisfy you.



Pretty easily, really. First, explain how Saddam was the belligerent. That's pretty self explanatory, I don't know how to make the question any clearer.

Second, find some posts on here with people saying that Saddam wasn't that bad a guy. It should be easy, if you're not making it up.



The belligerent, or a belligerent?
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0