Hiroshima, the pictures they didn't want us to see

[Jcrowley]

The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed about 250.000 people and became the most dreadful slaughter of civilians in modern history. However, for many years there was a curious gap in the photographic records. Although the names of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incised into our memories, there were few pictures to accompany them. Even today, the image in our minds is a mixture of devastated landscapes and shattered buildings. Shocking images of the ruins, but where were the victims?

The American occupation forces imposed strict censorship on Japan, prohibiting anything "that might, directly or by inference, disturb public tranquility" and used it to prohibit all pictures of the bombed cities. The pictures remained classified 'top secret' for many years. Some of the images have been published later by different means, but it's not usual to see them all together. This is the horror they didn't want us to see, and that we must NEVER forget:


1. Signals



All the watches found in the ground zero were stopped at 8:15 am, the time of the explosion.



Within a certain distance from the site of explosion, the heat was so intense that practically everything was vaporised. The shadows of the parapets were imprinted on the road surface of the Yorozuyo Bridge, 1/2 of a mile south-southwest of the hypocenter. Besides, in Hiroshima, all that was left of some humans, sitting on stone benches near the centre of explosion, was their outlines.

Within a certain distance from the site of explosion, the heat was so intense that practically everything was vaporised. The shadows of the parapets were imprinted on the road surface of the Yorozuyo Bridge, 1/2 of a mile south-southwest of the hypocenter. Besides, in Hiroshima, all that was left of some humans, sitting on stone benches near the centre of explosion, was their outlines.



2. The massacre

On August 6, 1945, 8.15 am, the uranium atom bomb exploded 580 metres above the city of Hiroshima with a blinding flash, creating a giant fireball and sending surface temperatures to 4,000C. Fierce heat rays and radiation burst out in every direction, unleashing a high pressure shockwave, vaporising tens of thousands of people and animals, melting buildings and streetcars, reducing a 400-year-old city to dust.



The article and more photos can be found here, many of them are quite graphic:
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html

[Bonobo]

1. Here come the apologists in 1...2...

[Taxloss]

3. On the plus side ...

... a flamewar would keep the thread kicked. And it should be kept kicked.

[Radio_Lady]

189. UPDATE: Photos in this OP do not load. Go directly to the link at the bottom, which does work.

Warning: These are the most graphic photos I've ever seen of the calamity in Japan. Please be prepared for difficult pictures.

[orleans]

210. i think it was in this documentary called "why we fight" by eugene

jarecki. it talks about the build up of the military industrial complex. it said that the japanese had been trying to surrender all summer but truman wouldn't accept it. he wanted the world to see this atomic bomb we had invented, to show how tough we were.

if you haven't seen this documentary then i highly recommend you watch it. (i think it's up on google video)

[edbermac]

9. If Japan had the A bomb first, they'd have use it in a heartbeat.

Apologists? Please. And where are the photos of the Pearl Harbor victims?

[Bonobo]

12. Pearl Harbor was a military target.

[edbermac]

18. So was Hiroshima.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. no it was not.

it was indiscriminate killing of civilians.

[edbermac]

28. So every bomb dropped on Pearl Harbor killed soldiers only?

I wasn't aware Japan had that kind of technology back then.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. there is a difference in bombing an entire city indiscriminately

and having some civillians die when you bomb a military base

[Massacure]

124. They were too military.

Hiroshima was the headquarters for many of the the Japanese military units in the southern part of the islands and also had substantial arms depots.

Nagasaki was a large industrial center producing war materials.

Some commanders originally wanted to bomb Kyoto simply because it was a major spiritual center in Japan. THAT would have been an indiscriminate killing of civilians.

[Bonobo]

25. An ENTIRE city? Preposterous. As is your comparison.

[edbermac]

31. There is a book called Rain of Ruin which describes the city.

I recall that at the time Hiroshima was an army town with troops, supplies and a communications center. Also I believe that the pilot who commanded the Pearl Harbor air attack (Fuchida?) was in the city the prior day for a military conference.

Though I might have to lean towards you in describing Hiroshima as a military town as opposed to being a military target. I think that Kokura had a very large arsenal and could be described better as a military target.

[uppityperson]

70. How about Nagasaki? Serious question.

[One_Life_To_Give]

82. Industrial Targets IIRC

The cities were targeted for their industrial capacity. Hence Tokyo, Hiroshima, Dresden, etc. were all targeted. I beleive that the psychological factor was also a major reason in the preference for an entire city as a target over just a remote military installation.

[EndElectoral]

134. We also vaporized our own POW's in Nagasaki - 200+.. War ain't fun.

[edbermac]

158. What is the question?

Are you asking if it was a military target or whether the US should have dropped another one after Hiroshima?

[uppityperson]

160. Was it a military target?

Economic? I think it was a secondary target, but can't remember if it was or not.

[Pavulon]

162. Depends on the war.

In a global thermonuclear war, you are. If you live near any major city, rail exchange, or military base you are going to die in a nuclear war. If you live in bfe, maybe not.

It was a secondary target, it was chosen because of weather conditions.

[edbermac]

168. The targets in Nagasaki were 2 Mitsubishi war plants.

A steel and armaments factory and a torpedo/ordnance making factory. This is from the book Rain of Ruin. The cities to be targeted had to have a military installation or a war plant; they also had to have been untouched by conventional bombing in order for the scientists to gauge the effect of the bombs. Rather ironically the city of Kokura, which had a large arsenal, was supposed to be the target of the second bomb. But bad weather over the city forced the crew to head for Nagasaki instead.

[rman]

347. So the US drops a bomb that evaporates the whole city

along with those factories. Perfectly logical.

[wtmusic]

359. "War is hell" and "No one was innocent" are the justifications du jour

for incinerating 50,000 civilians. Amazing how a little guilt can rework one's worldview.

[nadinbrzezinski]

373. And amazing how little historical knowledge

people have

As we keep asking, what were your preferred options for ending the war?

Be realistic by the way

[wtmusic]

397. Invasion of the island

Likely many more American casualties, likely less Japanese civilian casualties.

Responsibility is a bitch.

[Raskolnik]

399. "likely less Japanese civilian casualties"?

Are you familiar with the battle for Okinawa?

[Pavulon]

400. nope, this thread is infested

with revisionist bs. It is like skipping straight over basic physics and mathematics and proclaiming yourself to be a quantum theorist..

Most people here spouting have no idea of what the pacific theater was about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

402. My lord you are familiar with the battle for Okinawa

aren't you?

Or as now two of us are putting it, revisionist history allows you to skip facts, doesn't it?

[wtmusic]

405. Blah revisionist blah blah blah, blah blah

Although the "revisionist" mantra is very dear to you, you will be hard pressed (actually, it will be impossible) to find any place here where I have attempted to revise history.

Comparing Okinawa to an invasion of the mainland is apples/oranges. Many of the civilian deaths on Okinawa were the result of suicides due to Japanese propaganda describing atrocities committed on Japanese POWs; thousands threw themselves off cliffs. The Japanese army sent Okinawans out for food and water from their entrenched positions, only to be cut down by advancing American forces. The Imperial Army has the blood for these deaths on their hands, not Americans.

It was the first and only battle of the war in which Japanese troops surrendered by the thousands. By August (and largely because of Okinawa) the Japanese were dispirited and disillusioned, and would have surrendered in short order. But you completely ignore the main point--had more civilians died on the mainland, it would not be due to American fire, but either suicide or because the civilians had taken up arms, effectively terminating their status as civilians.

But it's easier to fry them all than give them a choice, isn't it? Plus, we got a chance to try out our new toy. :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

24. really? how do you know?

[Greyhound]

342. Perhaps they actually studied the facts of that terrible time, or maybe

they even lived it?

[Tesha]

50. Ahh, the "We're only as bad as they *MIGHT HAVE BEEN*" strategem. (NT)

[SweetGrass]

95. I don't think the suggestion was unreasonable.

Let's not discount the nature of the Japanese military culture of that era.

Rape. Nanking. All that. Like they gave a $%*& about civilians or anybody else.

[Tesha]

108. Sure, but does that justify us acting badly also? (NT)

[Sterling]

166. Yes

War is just that, acting badly. I hope when we must fight a war we do it as a matter of survival as WW2 was and we fight with everything we have and end it as fast as possible.

Right now we are fighting an unneeded war and doing a very half ass job of it.

[SweetGrass]

213. I don't agree with the premise.

I don't think we need to "justify" winning WWII, as if it's something to feel guilty about. Sometimes, you need to shut evil down - and the Japanese military of that era was every bit as evil as Hitler was, in terms of atrocities. You just don't hear about it as much.

Would the same people have objected if we had dropped the bomb on Berlin, to stop Hitler?

[Tesha]

272. See, that's it: We *STOPPED* Hitler without incinerating all of Berlin

(We did incinerate Dresden, though.

But the Japanese got three out of four of our
mass civilian murder missions: Tokyo, Hiroshima,
and Nagasaki.)

Tesha

[SweetGrass]

282. Perhaps that's because...

...like us, ultimately, the Nazis wanted to survive the war. The Japanese military culture at that time considered surrender unacceptable.

I just can't flog myself over this. I'm sorry innocent people EVER die in ANY war, but I'm glad the good guys won it in the end.

[Tesha]

286. I'm prettty sure that Japanese women and children wanted to survive too.

I'm prettty sure that Japanese women and children
wanted to survive too. Probably even a lot of Japanese
men. But we incinerated what, about 1/2 million of them
with our firebombing raid on Tokyo and our atomic attacks
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki just the same.

Tesha

[SweetGrass]

288. I'm sure you're right about that - no doubt they DID want to live...

...but that is grossly oversimplifying the situation.

[Tesha]

341. It's always interesting watching people justify mass murder.

Somehow, when *WE* do it, to the tune of 500,000
or so, there are always good reasons.

But when *THEY* kill 3000, it's "terrorism".

Tesha

[Bonobo]

344. You don't know enough history. I can't believe the ignorance here!

It's so pathetic to hear the revisionism of these idealistic kids who think that we can actually have a world where we don't drop weapons on innocents babies and make their innards flash boil!

Let me explain. You know nothing and are living in La-La land.

I know this because I have a BS degree in Rationalization from Smarterthan U.


:sarcasm:

[Tesha]

345. I'm not a kid. I'm not ignorant. And facts is facts.

I'm not a kid. I'm not ignorant. And facts is facts:

America incinerated about 500,000 Japanese men, women,
and children in three attacks at the close of WWII.

If you can't live with that fact, that's not my problem.

Tesha

[Bonobo]

346. Settle down and reread the post, Tesha.

I'm on your side.

That's what the sarcasm icon was for.

If you read this whole thread you would understand, I 'm sure.

[Tesha]

354. Thanks. (NT)

[Thothmes]

350. Survive

Have you ever seen the photographs of Japanese women throwing their children off cliffs on Saipan (I think), then following them over the cliff. These people had been indoctrinated to a fate worse than death if captured by the Americans. I think that it is reasonable the the citizens on the main islands had also be so indoctrinated.

[Raskolnik]

287. The hell we did.

Berlin was absolutely devastated in the Red Army's invasion. Over half a million German casualties, somewhere in the neighborhood of a hundred thousand rapes, and about a hundred thousand Soviet casualties. In one battle.

I'm willing to bet that if you had polled the residents of Berlin in May of 1945 and offered them a choice: either have an atomic weapon dropped on you or be faced with invasion and occupation by the Red Army, the vast majority would have chosen the former. It was that goddamn awful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

304. Shh knowing a little history makes you a belicose

agent, don't you see, we didn't bomb them becuase they were white

:sarcasm:

I know I am startign to find this ignornace beyond just astounding.

[Bonobo]

326. I'm finding your obnoxiousness astounding.

You think the de-humanization of the Japanese to be irrelevant.

Who is naive?

[nadinbrzezinski]

328. And confusing knowledge of history

with dehumanizing is just one more tool of those who ignore history

Here are some facts for you about the ever so innocent Japanese

1.- The Japanese engaged in biological warfare experiments in China... using among other things Anthrax.

2.- They also engaged in the outright murder of POWs since under their concept of honor they were less than human (granted they were NOT signatories of the GC, but hey still they did it)

3.- They ran pleasure houses in Korea where women were forced into prostitution

4.- Of course who can forget about the Rape of Nanking (and one reason for the oil embargo as the US and the world community ordered Japan out of the occupied Asian territories)

No, they were not innocent lambs brought to the slaughter

Here may be a shocker for you, neither were we... but you seem to have a problem comprehending this... war is horrible, terrible, et al, and those who refuse to learn from history, as you have obviously shown, are condemned to repeat it

You also cannot apply the modern standards of corporate graft and the military industrial complex to 1940, mostly we didn't have it... and the Truman Commission prevented quite a bit of the graft that could otherwise have happened

What is more, not that you'd know this, for the first 18 months of the war it was called Roosevelt's war.

Furthermore, not that you'd even realize this, I can see what they did with horror as well as what we did with horror... I do not consider studying history dehumanizing the enemy, in fact I consider the propaganda of the time (on all sides) to be a good study on how this is done.

What is amazing is your anti intellectualism (you have that in common with the right) and your willingness to sweep under the rug what the other side did. You are indeed that rare animal that blames this country for all the ills of the world and likes to judge history from our modern standards... which is one of the things REAL historians learn to avoid.

Inferences as to what we can learn from the past can and are done, but judging the past by our modern ethical standards or modern historical experience is not done... which is the kind of Fallacy you continue to engage in, and continue to do such by sweeping inconvenient facts, such as the Rape of Nanking, or the treatment of civilian populations in the Phil pines, or for that matter the treatment of Koreans and other Asian cultures under the Japanese Occupation. (which by the way fits the militaristic standards and racial believes of the Japanese) And they have yet to apologize for those horrors, unlike us, we have apologized to Interned Japanese Americans and you know why we have not yet done with Arab Americans> You guessed it, some of us remember that history and have been more than just vocal.

[saigon68]

376. They committed atrocities on our POWs

And Yamashita and his boys had their scrawny necks stretched with ropes

My father told me stories of how subhuman the \ enemy was.

[nadinbrzezinski]

393. Truist me I know

it is just one more atrocity in a long list

[dos pelos]

123. What are you going to use? Harsh language?.........

Lets see,what are the differences between US and Japanese military ethics in WWII? Negatives on the Japanese side are Nanking 1937,the Occupation of Manila,general treatment of civilian populations in occupied areas.Oh,also the medical experimentation on POWs, and lastly the (unfortunately persisting to this day), absolutely racist notion of the superiority of the Japanese as a race and culture.Watch out gaijin.

Negatives on the american side,massive aerial firebombing of japanese population centers,use of the A-bomb and concentration camp imprisonment of ethnically japanese american citizens.A government encouraged program to identify the enemy as a racially distinct entity.

A resource war which the Japanese lost,a war to integrate the Japanese into an industrial
economic framework dominated by the US.

The consequences of a US victory?A peaceful,prosperous,democratic Japan.The consequences of Japanese victory?Look at Nanking and Manila.
Any apologies for use of the A-bomb? None here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

45. Would more people have died if the bomb had been withheld?

Would a nuke attack on a more military target have been as effective in ending the war? None of us know. The island-hopping forces moving in on the Japanese mainland would have spread carnage.

Ending the war was necessary. It's reasonable to debate if the Hiroshima bomb was the best way to do so, but it's not debatable that it was effective in ending the war.

People lost their lives as a result of the bomb. People would have lost their lives if it had not been used.

[Solon]

115. Not many more, if the United States accepted Japan's repeated attempts at surrender...

before both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan tried to surrender under ONE condition, that the Emperor remains largely untouched. The United States, up till Hiroshima and Nagasaki, refused this, and demanded unconditional surrender, after the atomic bombs were set off, Japan finally gave in. Oddly enough, the United States actually kept the conditions of the original offer Japan gave, Japan still has an Emperor after all.

[Raskolnik]

119. That's a myth.

"Japan" was *not* seeking to surrender with one condition. There were some tentative inquiries made by Japanese officials about whether the U.S. would allow the Japanese to retain the Emperor after surrender, but those making the inquiries were not in a position to speak for the government, nor were they in any sort of control of Japan's armed forces. It would be analogous to a U.S. Congressman speaking with the Prime Minister of Iraq and discussing the terms of our withdrawal without the permission or knowledge of the military or the President.

Neither the Emperor nor the War Council was seeking to surrender, and the available evidence demonstrates fairly conclusively that the War Council would not have accepted surrender at that point in the war.

[Thothmes]

271. Surrender

Would we have accepted the surrender of the German Government in say January 1945 if we would only allow Hitler and the Nazi party to remain in power. I would think the President Roosevelt would have rejected this idea. The terms of surrender for Japan were the acceptance of the Potsdam Accords, nothing less. Had the Japanese Government simply accepted the terms of the Potsdam Accords in June or July 1945 the war would have ended then and there. The Allies would not have accepted any outcome to the War in Europe accept unconditional surrender of Germany. Why should the allies in the Pacific theater accept anything other than the unconditional surrender of Japan.

[wtmusic]

356. Less risky for us to just kill 'em all

Less risky to destroy Saddam than to negotiate. To incinerate the entire town of Fallujah, instead of going door to door.

Forcing other populations to bear the consequences of our own fear. The ethnocentric attitude which, if left unchallenged, will mean the end of our race.

[thereismore]

61. they can shove it up their asses as far as I am concerned.

I am not even reading their side anymore.

[pampango]

103. That's what I love about a progressive message board;)

[devilgrrl]

122. But but but the bombings saved more lives than they took...

:sarcasm:

[pampango]

127. You don't agree or the lives saved weren't worth unleashing

the atomic "genie".

[devilgrrl]

129. That's a talking point used to justify incinerating Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

the war was already over. The bombings were unnecessary and also killed several thousand American prisoners of war in Japan at the time. No, I do not agree that it saved more lives. It was an excuse to play with new weapons of mass destruction and Japanese citizens were the guinea pigs.

[Raskolnik]

130. What was your preferred alternative?

What do you think the U.S. should have done in August 1945 and beyond?

[devilgrrl]

135. That question can't be answered can it?

What was done is done. That still doesn't make it right.

[Raskolnik]

137. Of course it can, if you choose to answer it.

You posted that the bombings were "unnecessary" and that the idea of the bombs preventing a greater loss of life was a "talking point".

If you don't think using atomic weapons was correct strategically or morally, what would have been a better option?

[devilgrrl]

227. Since things are going "swimmingly" in Iraq why not use a nuke on them?

After all it would save more lives than take - so much good would come out of it. :sarcasm:

Whatever.

[Raskolnik]

231. A non-sequitor that avoids the question doesn't get us very far, now does it?

You really can't come up with a single argument to support the notion that other options available to the U.S. in 1945 were preferrable to the use of atomic weapons to end the war?

[devilgrrl]

243. Since you've got all the answers, how do we get out of Iraq?

Let's hear it answerman.

[Raskolnik]

280. Let's see...

I think we should start withdrawing troops immediately. See? It *is* possible to answer direct questions without resorting to snide non-sequitors.

[Sterling]

170. "the war was already over." This is a lie.

What was still yet to come was the invasion of the home islands of Japan which would have cost up to another million US lives an untold Japanese. The war was no where near "over" as far as the Japanese military was concerned.

My great uncle fought in the pacific. During the occupation of Japan he was given the task of hanging Japanese war criminals. I believe in his later years he felt sorrow for having to do that job. He grew to love the people of Japan while living there. At no point however did he kid himself into thinking that the government of Japan during the war was not dangerous and had to be fought with everything we had.

I think the US did what we had to do during WW2. If there ever was a clearer example of a struggle against "evil" than ww2? We may as well lament on Sherman's march to the sea. War is hell. It should always be avoided and when absolutely necessary should be fought whole heartedly and ended as soon as possible. Bombing Japan was a terrible necessity of that terrible war. Thank god we won and not Japan. The world is a much better place as a result of the sacrifice of the allied soldiers.

[devilgrrl]

225. Fine, "The world is a much better place as a result..."

And how's the world doing today????? At least those WWII troops got to enjoy the fruits of their labor, the GI bill, cheap housing in the 'burbs.... how are the Desert Storm guys going to fare?

BTW, my uncle got his eye shot out by the Japanese - I'm well aware that they were serious assholes, so don't even go there.

[Sterling]

339. I think it is unreasonable to assume the bombs would

resolve every problem there after til the end of time, don't you? Do you think the world would have been a happier place if we had not won that war?

[Taxloss]

2. Have you read John Hersey's "Hiroshima"?

I strongly recommend it.

And I recommend this thread. Thanks for taking the time.

[Jcrowley]

6. I have not

I'll look for it.

Peace

[knitter4democracy]

112. I had to in high school. Turned me against the bomb.

Our government was totally fine with vaporizing people and just leaving their outlines. I'm still horrified by that.

[Taxloss]

116. It made me realise that becoming a wall-shadow was the preferable outcome.

To survive, horribly burned, in agonising pain would make me envy the wall-shadows. The description of the scenes by the river, where the survivors who can still move gather to try and get help, and to try and find some relief from the poisoned water, is incredibly moving. A depiction of hell worthy of Dante or Bosch.

[Sterling]

174. "Our government" saved our asses in that one.

Remember FDR, he was one of the good ones. I can't really get upset with our government for protecting us from the Japanese and the Germans and I think the whole world has benefited from our efforts and our victory in that war. I am sure the Japanese and Germans would have been very merciful overlords, Jesus.

[Buck Rabbit]

237. US Invasion was not necessary, and likely would not have happened.

Japan's Navy was gone, they scuttled their last battleship. They had no effective air defense and were a perfect candidate for blockade and siege except that was unnecessary too, because the Russians were coming.

Think about this. Two events happened simultaneously.

Event One: two cities of minor military value were destroyed by air raids. These air raids did not kill any more people than previous firebomb raids on Tokoyo and the Japanese did not know about the radiation effects or the mushroom clouds or the horrors of the bomb that we now know about at the time.

Event Two: The Russian Army that had pummeled Germany to a pulp, crushed Japans largest offshore army in just days. A million man army in Manchuria completely defenseless against the onslaught of heavy armor and massive artillery of the Reds. The horrifying Russians were poised to invade the Northern Islands long before the Americans were in position to invade.

So what was the biggest loss to the Empire, the loss of a couple hundred thousand old men, women and children or the loss of a million soldiers?

Let's get it from the horses mouth:

EMPEROR HIROHITO'S SURRENDER RESCRIPT TO JAPANESE TROOPS

August 17, 1945

New York Times.

TO THE OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE IMPERIAL FORCES:

Three years and eight months have elapsed since we declared war on the United States and Britain. During this time our beloved men of the army and navy, sacrificing their lives, have fought valiantly on disease-stricken and barren lands and on tempestuous waters in the blazing sun, and of this we are deeply grateful.

Now that the Soviet Union has entered the war against us, to continue the war under the present internal and external conditions would be only to increase needlessly the ravages of war finally to the point of endangering the very foundation of the Empire's existence

With that in mind and although the fighting spirit of the Imperial Army and Navy is as high as ever, with a view to maintaining and protecting our noble national policy we are about to make peace with the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union and Chungking.

To a large number of loyal and brave officers and men of the Imperial forces who have died in battle and from sicknesses goes our deepest grief. At the same time we believe the loyalty and achievements of you officers and men of the Imperial forces will for all time be the quintessence of our nation.

We trust that you officers and men of the Imperial forces will comply with our intention and will maintain a solid unity and strict discipline in your movements and that you will bear the hardest of all difficulties, bear the unbearable and leave an everlasting foundation of the nation

[Sterling]

337. There is an enormous amount of information on the military

situation during the last days of that war. While use of the bomb on moral grounds remains extremely controversial the idea that the Japanese were ready to give up is not supported by the facts. The closer we got to Japan the harder the Japanese fought. Study the battle's that were fought right before the bombings. The Japanese people were being prepared to sacrifice themselves to preserve their government/emperor/sovereignty.

The Japanese were as if not more fanatical than the Nazi's. It took the destruction/conquest of every inch of Germany to finally get a surrender. The Japanese military had no intention of surrendering before the bombs were dropped. In the end it was the military that would make that call, not the emperor, not the people.

It took a combination of the losses the Japanese had taken during the war with the US, the surrender of Germany, the Russians declaring war on Japan and the atomic bomb to finally convince the Japanese military that there was no hope of even bleeding the US invasion force to the point they could get favorable peace terms. Without the bombs the Japanese military much like the Germans entertained the idea that although they could no longer hope for outright victory, they may be able to preserve their power structure by making the price for final victory too high for the Allies.

History is not what we wish it would be. It is what it is. I think we would all like it if the bombings had not happened. It is not something one should find pleasure with. The ugly truth is the bomb had a huge impact on the outcome of the second world war and probably prevented another gigantic world war using conventional weapons between the US and USSR. That is not to say that we have yet to see the end of these weapons or to say that they have made us "safe". They could very well be our doom if we do not learn how to live without war.

[knitter4democracy]

269. So, being worse than our enemy was better?

First of all, the war was mostly over. If we'd given the Emperor more time, and possibly done a demonstration we'd invited the Japanese to, there is darn good evidence that it would've worked.

Many of the scientists who worked on the bomb wrote a letter asking for just that. The President ignored their warnings, and people were vaporized.

It's not like I haven't studied this or had a million arguments about it with my dad--who was in Pearl Harbor when it was attacked and whose father was a chief in the Navy during the War. There are still major false assumptions we keep using to justify vaporizing people and only leaving their families shadows in the pavement for their grief. We'd already beaten the Germans--we didn't need the atomic bomb to fight them. To keep the atomic program going, though, we let a lot of Nazi scientists come to our country and keep doing research with no repercussions.

I did not say that fighting against tyranny was a bad idea. I said that vaporizing people was wrong--there are other ways to handle it. The Russians I talked with when I studied there in college were very dismissive of our war efforts. They took on Hitler by themselves on the Eastern Front. They lost more men in one day than we did in the entire war. They had entered the war against the Japanese to squeeze the Emperor (and to gain a port on the Pacific), and they were winning.

FDR was a good president, but he wasn't perfect, as no president ever is. We only started the Manhattan Project after hearing that Germany was working on it. We only used it because we had it and feared an escalation when the war was winding down. We used it to show the USSR we were boss and to keep top-dog status at the time. Many, many suffered for our actions, and we are responsible for that.

[Sterling]

338. I don't consider our actions to be "worse" than Japan's

I see our actions for the most part to have been necessary to defeat a terrible threat to the human race. The Japanese military government was as evil as the Nazi's and we should all be damned grateful our forefather's did what had to be done to defeat them.

I have read a lot about the idea of "showing" the Japanese the bomb. Not practical for far too many reasons for me to try to cover but this is a good example of some of the reasoning behind not doing a demo:

"WE COULD NOT GIVE THE JAPANESE ANY WARNING"
The question of whether to drop the first atomic bomb on Japan without warning was left to another group, the Interim Committee on post-war atomic policy. On May 31, 1945, Secretary Stimson chaired a meeting of this group, which included Truman's personal representative, James F. Byrnes, and the committee's scientific advisers, headed by Dr. Robert Oppenheimer. The committee members briefly discussed warning the Japanese to evacuate the target, or arranging a demonstration of the bomb for delegates from Japan. However, they rejected those ideas because they reasoned that the Japanese, if warned, might try to shoot down the bomber or move prisoners of war into the target area, and because the demonstration bomb might fail to explode. Others who know about the atomic bomb were also thinking of ways to demonstrate it. For example, Manhattan Project physicist Edward Teller proposed exploding the first bomb high over Tokyo Bay at night, without any warning, to shock the Japanese leaders. But prior to the first test, the scientists had generally underestimated the power of the bomb, and it was not clear that any non-lethal demonstration would sufficiently impress the Japanese.


The Russians lost more people in WW2 than anyone else. I'm very glad we have a different military doctrine than the old USSR. You don't really think in a war it is wise to intentionally fight a mutual war of attrition which is what the struggle between the USSR and Germany was without a shadow of a doubt? That kind of struggle in fact costs far more in terms of lives and destruction than was caused by the dropping of both bombs. The ratio is not even comparable. Ending the war with a land invasion of Japan was a far more destructive alternative for all sides than the abrupt end that came after the bombs were used. Thank someone that we did not have to do that.

Our military doctrine is "we don't die for our country, we make the other son's of a bitches die for theirs". I think it was Patton that said that, but that is indeed the superior military philosophy.

[wtmusic]

398. "That kind of struggle in fact costs far more in terms of lives

and destruction than was caused by the dropping of both bombs."

And when the bomb isn't dropped on you, there's no cost at all, is there? :rofl:

[Vidar]

334. In sixth grade. Made quite an impression.

[NotGivingUp]

4. the photos are not showing up on my computer. n/t

[Cobalt Violet]

7. Mine either. n/t

[michreject]

8. I can't see them either......nt

[Olney Blue]

10. I can't see them either.

[Jcrowley]

17. Have you gone to the link?

They are showing up fine over here. Check out the original link.

[NotGivingUp]

20. yes, they show up just fine there. i feel ill.

[Radio_Lady]

186. Your inserted pictures are not linked in properly. The master link DOES work, but I cannot look at

them. I am already hyperventilating over the US -- Iran "war games." I'm having nightmares like I did when I was a little girl age 6 in 1945. My parents talked in hushed tones about the devastation of World War II.

Now, we visit the Arizona memorial in Honolulu, where we belong to the Hilton Grand Vacations Club. There are so many Asian faces around that it seems virtually impossible that we once warred with these people.

How does a society learn from its mistakes? How do we stop the wars among people on this tiny planet on the edge of the Milky Way? I'm now almost 68 years old and I have no answers.

Another Grandmother for Peace

Radio Lady in Oregon

[RebelOne]

11. All I see are little blue boxes.

[mcscajun]

15. Mine either, but if you right-click on any image link, and choose "View Image"

You should be able to view each one separately. None are graphic, BTW.

[uppityperson]

66. right click on one, then click view image.

thanks for the pictures and reminder.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. watch people excuse americans for killing civilians as a necessary thing

whatever. when we do it its necessary. when others do it its terrorism.

BLAH!

[dipsydoodle]

16. Ta for those

- lest we forget.x(

[Missy M]

19. Yes, they will use the usual excuse that....

it ended the war and more would have been killed if they hadn't dropped the bomb. I found dropping the bombs horrific.

[pampango]

36. It's only an "excuse" if you believe that it is not true.

As amateur historians we can all have an opinion on what alternative history would have occurred if not for the bombs. If the war would have ended quickly anyway, then the bombs were horrifically inexcusable.

If it would have taken an invasion or blockade to end the war, the the bombs did save lives. You could still feel that it would have been better for more people to die without using the bombs, because the bombs are that horrible. You are entitled to your opinion, but I imagine that the greater number of people who would have died under the invasion or blockade scenario (we will never know who they were), would not agree with you.

[KenHodson]

35. inevitable is a better word

Killing civilians is an inevitable thing. War is horrific! War is terrifying! Once the big war machine starts going, these awful things occur.
Now we've added pre-emptive attacks to our vocabulary. War must be used only as a last resort when ALL other diplomatic means fail and then only extremely rarely.

[ContraBass Black]

62. Ugh. Look at that jackass second comment.

[Raskolnik]

74. What do you think was the preferrable alternative for ending the war?

Would a blockade and invasion of the home islands have produced fewer civilian casualties? Would you have preferred the Japanese government and military leaders responsible for the war remain in power? Should the U.S. have continued with the firebombing campaign?

Its all well and good to condemn the use of atomic weapons as horrific (which, of course, it was) but there may not have been a less horrific option available at the time.

[Sterling]

176. Well we do try to do it only when necessary

I think WW2 was necessary. What would you have done if you were FDR or Truman?

[Captain Hilts]

13. More died in the fire-bombing of Tokyo. nt

[pampango]

22. Yeah, but that was lots of bombs, not just one bomb, so

the people don't count as much. :sarcasm: Only those killed by single large explosions are counted the way this game is scored.

It would have been much better to blockade Japan, continue the conventional bombing and just starve them out. I am sure that fewer civilians would have died that way.

[MamaBear]

53. More people died initially, perhaps.

I don't think anybody in Tokyo died from radiation poisoning, or gave birth to deformed babies due to the Tokyo firebombing.

Nuclear fission is the gift that keeps on giving. :cry:

[nadinbrzezinski]

307. Actually

you are wrong... yep it is the gift that keeps on giving but raw numbers, more people died in Tokyo that have died since 1945, or when added to the victims that day.

Partly Hiroshima was a smaller city, but don't let facts get in the way.

[Supersedeas]

284. Tokyo Dresden Nagasaki Hiroshima - common element - terrorize the civilian populace

[nadinbrzezinski]

308. Let me add the list for the other side

London, Moskow, Warsaw, Birmingham

See a pattern?

It is called total war, not terrorism

And in total war your goal is to eliminate the will of the enemy at all levels to fight you.

Oh I forgot, plenty of nice treatment by the Janapese all of the Pacific theater for occupied populations.

Oh in that regard, let me add the Rape of Nanking. Granted, not WW II stricktly, just the 1930s, but perhaps you should read about it.

[Supersedeas]

366. perhaps I have already read about it--so are you saying the rape of nanking

is not different than another other battle in the total war to eliminate the will of the enemy.

Is there no morally superior way to win a war?

Japan victory is Nanking is just as commendable as Roosevelt's victory in Manilla. Funny, he could have leveled Manilla but chose not to...is his victory less a victory because he did not slaughter innocents with the blade or fissionable material?

Thanks for this history lesson.

[nadinbrzezinski]

377. Total War is total war

bvt I noticed that you are going into all kinds of conjectures to justify the actions of the Japanese and condemtn the US

I will ask a simple qusetion... would you have rather had the Axis win the war?

After all if they did the auful US would not be around to bully all.



By the way, that was actually brought up at the IMT... and from time to time by International lawyers, but I am sure you knew that... oh and we did not flatten Manila... was not needed.

[Bonobo]

387. "Would you have rather had the Axis win the war?"

A question truly unworthy of DU...and you.

That sounds like someone who would say "Why do America?" on FR.

[nadinbrzezinski]

394. It is a valid question, after all this discusion with you

and one that yuo are now ducking, thank you

[Dhalgren]

14. K&R!

Thanks for posting this. We should never forget...

[Little Wing]

21. Who's they?

[ChickMagic]

26. I have a dog in this fight

So I should recuse myself. I'll explain - my father was a POW in the Bataan Death March. He was a slave in the Mitsubitshi coal mines and was 2 weeks from execution when the bomb dropped. It's selfish, I know. My heart hurts for the innocents who were killed and maimed.

[eagler]

37. thank you for your sanity.

[ChickMagic]

43. Thanks, eagler.

I was raised to despise the Japanese, but I overcame that. My father reamed me out for buying a Toyota. My wealthy sister bought a BMW and I told my dad that the Germans killed an awful lot of people. That shut him up.

[ContraBass Black]

60. Both your Toyota and her BMW were probably assembled by Americans.

[ChickMagic]

64. Ya, I told him that.

He still holds quite a grudge, though. He calls it a "riceburner". :mad:

[ContraBass Black]

Does he drive a car with an American name that was assembled

By Canadians or Mexicans?

[ChickMagic]

77. Of course!

Ford and Chevy because they're "'murcan cars". They are also POS cars. My Toyota - no problems. He places more value on his pubbie kool aid than he does my safety. Wotta guy!

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Well my dad was on the Hitler travel plan

and he surprised us when he bought a Beemer, the car is over 20 years and still runs like a clock.

His reasoning, if Israel could do business with them, so could he.

Some people can do it, some cannot

[eagler]

47. It is very necessary to remember and learn from Hiroshima

and Nagasaki, But before the blame games begin, one needs to question the survivors in China, the Pacific Islands, all of SE Asia.

[ChickMagic]

59. I agree wholeheartedly

If my dad had been executed on schedule, I wouldn't even be here to debate it.
Therefore, my point would be moot.

[semillama]

67. I had a great-uncle on the Bataan Death March

He didn't make it, he caught dysentery and that was it. So, I recuse myself as well.

[ChickMagic]

80. I'm sorry to hear that.

Dad was pretty resourceful. He had malaria and dysentery, but he also had a background in biology. He stole iodine from dead soldiers and put it in the horse
tracks with puddled water to sneak a drink. He could have been shot on the
spot for that. One story that sticks with me was when he was loaded on a cattle train, a Phillipino woman snuck him a banana leaf with rice in it. He credits her
for saving his life at great risk to herself.

He only weighed 89 pounds when he returned. He's still with us today. Just try to grow up with a dad who ate rotten rice with maggots and turn down food when you're a kid!

Sorry - didn't mean to thread jack.

[Sterling]

179. My uncle executed some of those criminals.

My great uncle that is. People seem to forget what we were fighting at that point.

[CrispyQ]

27. As we stomp around the globe with our "might makes right" self righteousness,

telling which nations can have nukes & which can't, too many of our fellow citizens forget that we are the only nation to have used nukes on a live population.

I believe Cheney is itchin' to test his bunker busters on a live population.

[Bonobo]

30. K&R for a beautiful country that has made a beautiful recovery

on a long, difficult road. May they soon be on their own feet again and free of American hegemony.

US out of Okinawan! Get your fucking nukes off Japanese soil!

[slackmaster]

32. Let's not get TOO gushy over the beauty of Japan

Women are still unequal and even treated as chattel there. The country still practices capital punishment. Many of the freedoms we take for granted here, like the requirement for a warrant before police can search your home, have never existed. Racism, even against other Asians, is endemic in the culture. Strict economic measures by the goverment ban importation of staples like rice in order to protect farmers against more efficient producers. Japan relies heavily on nuclear power for its huge per capita apetite for electricity, and like the rest of us has not found a real solution for nuclear waste.

Let us also not forget that Japan was an aggressor in World War II, and that it has not yet come to grips with that truth.

That all said, it is a very beautiful country with rich art and literature and a long history.

[Bonobo]

33. Sorry. I can't let that stand uncontested.

Let me preface it by saying that I am a Japanese transalator and have lived there for 4 years. So I PROBABLY know more than you do about the culture. Not bragging, just telling the truth.

>Women are still unequal and even treated as chattel there.
Chattel? Bullshit.

>Racism, even against other Asians, is endemic in the culture.
Racism endemic? Like it's endemic in our culture? Bullshit.

>Strict economic measures by the goverment ban importation of staples like rice in order to protect farmers against more efficient producers.
Bullshit. Who wouldn't want their own supply of food? Anyway, that ceased to be true at least 10 years ago.

[KenHodson]

40. There's more too

"The country still practices capital punishment" So does the one I live it.

"Many of the freedoms we take for granted here, like the requirement for a warrant before police can search your home..." You haven't been paying attention. At all.

[slackmaster]

44. Pointing out the flaws in our country doesn't excuse Japan's problems

And I never claimed that we were any better. I take issue with the "Japan Is Beautiful" love-fest that erupts every time the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings are mentioned.

For most of its history Japan has been a barbaric, isolationist monarchy. The post WWII Japan is much better, but it's not the modern, progressive paradise painted by some DUers.

[Bonobo]

46. What is the source of all your experience and knowledge about Japan?

I'll be glad to share mine ;)

[slackmaster]

49. I've read history, and your defense is lukewarm

Maybe I am misinformed about their agricultural protections and how women are treated today, but you said nothing about capital punishment or the atrocities the Japanese committed up to and including World War II.

I've had Korean professionals tell me they were treated like dirt there because they were Korean; some Japanese still think of them as bumpkins. My ex-wife applied for a software engineering job at Kyocera in the mid 1990s. She was told very bluntly that the promotional opportunities for women were limited. She was also told by the same interviewers that promotional opportunities for non-Japanese were limited. That was in San Diego, California BTW, where such discrimination is illegal. We were under extreme financial duress at the time and considered suing the company. A lawyer told us it wouldn't be worth the effort.

[Bonobo]

55. You were right about a couple of things.

Capital punishment is true.

Prejudice against Koreans is true in some cases, less so now because Korea has become quite popular in the last few years.

Glass ceilings for women is true.

Promotional opportunities being limited for non-Japanese is mostly true.

However, those things canot be criticized without a better understanding of the entire culture and the balance that exists here. It is a great country. The people are great. I took exception to your unecessary jumping on my non-offensive statement that Japan is beautiful and I called you on it.

Now it is clear you have personal issues which cause you to be bitter against Japan and I now understand why you made your comment.

But the main thing I want to say is that while you are correct that Japan has problems, so do ALL cultures and it has a hell of a lot less problems than America. Believe me.

[slackmaster]

79. I spent a week there in 1996, climbed Mt. Fuji, got the walking stick

I had a great time. The place seemed like a giant Disneyland in some ways.

Other than the crowded conditions, which the Japanese have adopted to very well, the only real negative impression I got was that it seems to be a nation of overworked people who smoke way too much and don't get nearly enough exercise.

I could write a book about my Mt. Fuji climb. I was shocked at how many Japanese were having a very hard time with the hike. Thin Japanese were getting dusted on the trail by overweight Americans, Australians, Germans, and Canadians. I saw one poor bastard at about 11,000 feet alternately huffing on a lit cigarette he held in one hand, and a can of oxygen in the other. Some of the middle-aged Japanese men in particular looked close to death on the way down. I understand the normal work week is still six days, and vacation two weeks for most people regardless of seniority.

My point about the food situation is that prices for consumers are kept higher than they could be, by sustaining a system with an excessive number of middle people and banning imports of basics. Food is very expensive in Japan, much more than it need be.

It is a beautiful country to be sure, but you couldn't pay me enough to trade what I have in California to move there.

[Recursion]

214. But hey, they'll supplement the rice with whalemeat soon...

*shrug*

I've been to Japan a few times. Weird place. And not just "weird" as in "different" -- Malawi and Kenya were "different". Japan was quite simply weird. Have you ever seen Japanese porn? There's something very very dark in the collective id over there that creeps me out. And not like the dark thing in the collective American id, which is mostly just provincial, xenophobic, and crass.

That said, I was in the city. My friends tell me that once you get out of there it's a different world. I'd like to do that next time.

[Bonobo]

229. You sound like a real open-minded non-xenophobic world-traveler!

[slackmaster]

395. Yes, I peeked over the shoulders of several men while riding the trains

I saw a lot of porn being read in public. Much of it was comics in Anime style. Young looking women dressed in school uniforms are popular. The most disturbing part was a lot of the porn I saw was quite violent.

[rebel with a cause]

58. Ok, Japan should admit thier wrongs over the years.

And so should we. Lets start with the Native people we displace, enslaved and killed. Then let us go to the importing of slaves from Africa. Then let us go to the inteference in the Caribbean that was taking place as early as in the seventeen hundreds. Then through out our history there is the mistreatment of people that were considered below the European dominant culture known as Americans, such as the Chinese railroad workers, the freed slaves, the American Indians and etc. The taking of land from the Mexicans and others. And the list can go on forever. Now when we admit and make amends for all the things that our ancestors have done, then and only then, can we can start judging those in other countries. Until then, I suggest we shut up on our "we are better than you" theme.

[hertopos]

109. I am originally from Japan.

I am very aware of Japanese imperial army atrocity during WW II.
However, Japan, through its fairly long history, remained isolated and peaceful. Japanese couture is not expansive ( Compare it all other near-by countries such as China. How many times Japan invaded other country. Twice!!). It is rather introspective.

Imperial Japan is, at least, a very nightmarish diversion from its original culture, inspired by European and American imperialism. To be inspired is understatement. It adapted imperialism in a worst form like Germany. Imperialism is an imperialism. English ones are as bad as Germans from its former colonies!!

I don't paint Japan as a paradise. At the same time, certain things are working very well in Japan because it fits its original national characteristics. Traditional Japanese culture despise the ostentatious display of wealth. This is why Japan still support one of most progressive income tax and very high death tax.

About Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing.
I am not blaming Hiroshima bombing; however, I do have some reservation regarding Nagasaki bombing. I actually met a Chemistry professor who participated Manhattan Project. He said that main purpose of Nagasaki bombing was to test different type of atomic bomb.

I have no intention of disputing the strategic value of atomic bombing.
Something drastic was needed to stop Soviet invasion from North. This is why many Japanese do not resent U.S. for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

At the same time, every American should really be aware of really really aware of the atrocious nature of bombing.

American bombs way too much. Nuclear bombs are worst of all bombs but so many modern conventional bombs are almost as terrible. Some Chemical bombs have long term effect almost similar to nuclear bombs.

Please, I plea as a Japanese. I am not into blame game. I hate my country's most recent atrocity and that's why I learned about them a lot.
U.S. did not pay any attention to Japanese atrocity in China until China become a major economic power.

People who has a relative who survived Japanese War atrocity. Tell your relatives, now you know why so many people in the world hate U.S.

Peace

Hertopos

[Sterling]

180. I tend to agree, Japan is not just what it was from 1929-45

I have been to Japan and loved the people and culture. It was hard to imagine that for that period of time Japan was such a threat to the rest of the world. I admire Japan and hope our countries remain friends. many things about Japan floored me. Like the fact people leave thousands of bikes on bike racks and no one steals them. The honor system over there is the real thing.

I hate that we were ever at war with Japan but it does not change the fact that during that period of time Japan had a government that was committing great crimes and needed to be defeated in order for the world to be safe.

[closeupready]

404. Thank you for that. I am not ashamed of how the US ended the war, but

I also feel bad for the loss of innocent lives. These are the tragic things that happen when war is ignited, and if people can learn to be peaceful from the results of these things, maybe humanity is better for it? Who knows.

Peace. :hi:

[Radio_Lady]

244. Hi Ken, and welcome to the DU. You have posted two things that we have in common

with our former enemies. Ironic, but true.

Thanks for posting.

Another Grandmother for Peace,

Radio Lady in Oregon

[uppityperson]

72. Those complaints sound a lot like the USA too. Interesting.

Not flaming, just noticing. Unequal chattel women? Capital punishment? Search and seizure? Racism? Yup. Still, there are beautiful places and people most everywhere.

[slackmaster]

81. I never said the US doesn't have those problems as well

The predictable gushing over Japan at any mention of the atomic bombings seems unrealistic and frankly a bit silly to me.

[uppityperson]

139. True, and I got that.I just thought the comparisons were, well, comperable.

gush gush gush gush.

[Raskolnik]

94. While I agree with some of your sentiment, the "long, difficult road" Japan faced

was a direct result of Japan's aggressive, imperial, and unimaginably barbaric actions during the war. The reason they were subject to American hegemony for the latter half of the last century was because they lost a war that they started.

[eagler]

34. History shouldn't be debated out of the context of the times.

the lesson that needs to be drawn from this is that war is unacceptable and All parties are to blame.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. if history isnt debated, the lessons dont persist

its because we dont discuss hiroshima/nagasaki/vietnam etc enough that iraq happened.

[Sterling]

183. Discussions of WW2 actually remind most Americans

that sometimes war is the only option. The poster you replied to was actually saying history should not be debated outside of the CONTEXT. Meaning don' forget how dangerous Japan was and what the price of losing that war would have been for the entire world.

[sakabatou]

39. A good film on this is Barefoot Gen

[DrunkenMaster]

41. We Only Mass Murder When It Is the Right Thing to Do!

Don't you understand that the difference between us and other countries is that when WE slaughter entire cities of civilians it is for righteous reasons?

On Edit: "righteous reasons" = saving white, American lives.

[Raskolnik]

68. Do you think less Japanese would have died had the war ended differently? n/t

[LynzM]

42. Pics of kids are heartbreaking...

I agree with the poster at that site who stated that the comments attest to why things like this still go on... the judgments and anger are the same as they ever were, and the two sides will never agree on whether the bombing was necessary or correct. Personally, I loathe any harm and killing of people, and have a hard time seeing good in the actions of either side. :(

[Bigmack]

48. When I taught HS History...

I got the 16 mm film "Hiroshima Nagasaki - August 1945" and showed it to my students as part of the study of WWII. Our district didn't have it, but a local JC did.

It had a lot of footage taken by the Japanese in each of the cities. Gruesome. Kids had never seen anything like that before.

When we moved on to the study of the Cold War and multi-megaton weapons, the kids had a much better idea of the power of the weapons.

I used to have the kids (seniors) debate the use of the bombs. The "no bomb" side won every time.

I found the movie recently at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277013/

[slackmaster]

52. That may be the best thing that comes of the atomic bombings

Showing young people what it's really about can only help avoid having the weapons used again.

[One_Life_To_Give]

87. If we hadn't seen the carnage then, it would have been the H bomb

dropped onto the Chinese during the Korean war. Even having seen the damage first had McArthur wanted to drop it on them.

[Tesha]

54. Today, in America, you probably wouldn't be allowed to show the film.

Today, in America, you probably wouldn't be allowed to show the film.

Too violent.

The chance of seeing dead bodies with their clothes burned off.

No "balancing point of view" arguing that we had to incinerate
all those people because it was Dog's will that we do it.

Tesha

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

51. Democracy's Keeper

by James Carroll

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0118-29.htm

<snip>

John Kenneth Galbraith coined the phrase "conventional wisdom," and again and again, across a lifetime, he has shown how to transcend it. I have just read an early copy of "John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics" by Richard Parker, and the story of this man's life and work, wonderfully rendered in this magnum opus, offers an antidote to the public ennui, economic cruelty, and government malfeasance that poison life in America today.

I have known Parker for years and have discussed his work with him often. Like many writers, I have had the benefit of professor Galbraith's encouragement and remain amazed to realize that we are friends. But in reading Richard's book, those intimate relationships fell away as I saw with a first full clarity the scope of Galbraith's significance.

As a member of the US Strategic Bombing Survey immediately after World War II, for example, the young economist was one of those charged with evaluating the effect of the Allied air campaigns against Germany and Japan. Against claims made for air power at the time (and against Pentagon assumptions that still privilege strategic bombing), Galbraith's team showed that neither enemy manufacturing capacity nor morale were significantly hampered by bombing.

Most unconventionally, the agency's report on the effects of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki concluded that "Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." In 1945, Galbraith was left with a lifelong skepticism about bombing, which, alas, his country would not share...

[bleedingheart]

56. and all of this is the cost of waging war...

this is the reason why people encourage and march for peace....why war should be the last resort...

Because once started ..war is truly hell look at Iraq...there are people who know what we are doing there is wrong...but yet the war machine once moving is very hard to stop.

As for civilians being hurt...I can't think of any war that didn't hurt civilians or the innocent.

Go back through history...the civilians were the spoils of war...they were the slaves, the victims of rape and brutality and their possessions were fair game if their leader lost.

What is the lesson to be learned from any war...that war is hell.

That is the lesson all of humanity keeps forgetting and while some may focus on the nuclear bombs as a problem...the problem is what drives us as a species to wage war...

[Sterling]

191. the problem is what drives us as a species to wage war

Right on.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

57. Testimony of Akira Onogi

Mr. Akira Onogi was 16 years old when the bomb was dropped. He was at home 1.2 km away from center of explosion. The house was under the shade of the warehouse, which protected him from the first blast. All five members of the Onogi family miraculously survived the immediate fire at their house.

MR. ONOGI: I was in the second year of junior high school and was mobilized work with my classmates at the Eba Plant, Mitsubishi shipbuilding. On the day when A-bomb was dropped, I happened to be taking the day off and I was staying at home. I was reading lying on the floor with a friend of mine. Under the eaves I saw blue flash of light just like a spark made by a train or some short circuit. Next, a steamlike blast came.

INTERVIEWER: From which direction?

ANSWER: Well, I'm not sure, anyway, when the blast came, my friend and I were blown into another room. I was unconscious for a while, and when I came to, I found myself in the dark. Thinking my house was directly hit by a bomb, I removed red soil and roof tiles covering me by hand and for the first time I saw the sky. I managed to go out to open space and I looked around wondering what my family were doing. I found that all the houses around there had collapsed for as far as I could see.

INTERVIEWER: All the houses?

ANSWER: Yes, well, I couldn't see anyone around me but I heard somebody shouting ``Help! Help!'' from somewhere. The cries were actually from underground as I was walking on. Since no choose were available, I'd just dug out red soil and roof tiles by hand to help my family; my mother, my three sisters and a child of one of my sisters. Then, I looked next door and I saw the father of neighboring family standing almost naked. His skin was peeling off all over his body and was hanging from finger tips. I talked to him but he was too exhausted to give me a reply. He was looking for his family desperately. The person in this picture was a neighbor of us. I think the family's name was the Matsumotos. When we were escaping from the edge of the bridge, we found this small girl crying and she asked us to help her mother. Just beside the girl, her mother was trapped by a fallen beam on top of the lower half of her body. Together with neighbors, we tried hard to remove the beam, but it was impossible without any tools. Finally a fire broke out endangering us. So we had no choice but to leave her. She was conscious and we deeply bowed to her with clasped hands to apologize to her and then we left. About one hour later, it started raining heavily. There were large drops of black rain. I was wearing a short sleeve shirt and shorts and it was freezing. Everybody was shivering. We warmed ourselves up around the burning fire in the middle of the summer.

INTERVIEWER: You mean the fire did not extinguish by the rain?

ANSWER: That's right. The fire didn't subside it at all. What impressed my very strongly was a 5 or 6 year-old-boy with his right leg cut at the thigh. He was hopping on his left foot to cross over the bridge. I can still record this scene very clearly. The water of the river we looking at now is very clean and clear, but on the day of bombing, all the houses along this river were blown by the blast with their pillars, beams and pieces of furniture blown into the river or hanging off the bridges. The river was also filled with dead people blown by the blast and with survivors who came here to seek water. Anyway I could not see the surface of the water at all. Many injured people with peeled skin were crying out for help. Obviously they were looking at us and we could hardly turn our eyes toward the river.

INTERVIEWER: Wasn't it possible to help them?

ANSWER: No, there were too many people. We took care of the people around us by using the clothes of dead people as bandages, especially for those who were terribly wounded. By that time we somehow became insensible all those awful things. After a while, the fire reached the river bank and we decided to leave the river. We crossed over this railway bridge and escaped in the direction along the railway. The houses on both sides of the railroad were burning and railway was the hollow in the fire. I thought I was going to die here. It was such an awful experience. You know for about 10 years after bombing I always felt paralyzed we never saw the sparks made by trains or lightning. Also even at home, I could not sit beside the windows because I had seen so many people badly wounded by pieces of glass. So I always sat with the wall behind me for about 10 years. It was some sort of instinct to self-preservation.

Source: http://www.inicom.com/hibakusha/index.html

[bvar22]

63. The decision to "BOMB" was political, NOT military.

It is not well know that the top military brass were AGAINST the use of the Atomic Bomb on Japan. Most have revealed this in their memoirs.
The top commanders (Eisenhower, McArthur and others) were united in their opinion that it was unnecessary. The military opposition exposes the LIE that dropping the Bomb was a necessity.

REPEAT: The decision to drop The BOMB was political, NOT military.


K&R

[Raskolnik]

69. How do you propose the war should have been ended?

Blockade? Invasion of the home islands? Should the U.S. have turned around and gone home?

[bvar22]

76. See post #75,

*

[Raskolnik]

78. Cherry-picked quotes are not an argument.

I understand that many politicians and military leaders sought to distance themselves from the decision to use the bomb in the post-war years.

You haven't offered what you think would have been the preferable alternative to using atomic weapons to end the war. Would you have used a blockade followed by an invasion (as the many of the military leaders advocated) that would probably have resulted in millions of casualties? Would you have continued the firebombing campaign until capitulation? Would you have waited until the Japanese home islands were starved into submission? What is *your* alternative.

[Sterling]

195. "McArthur"

Yeah, the guy that wanted 50 of them to drop on China. Where do people pull this faux history from anyway? Maybe some guy named "McArthur" did not want to bomb but the General MacArthur who fought in WW2 never met a Japanese/Asian he did not want to kill.

[bvar22]

296. I expect better from you, Sterling.

Here are Gen. Douglas McArthur's own words from a press release on Tuesday, August 6, 1945 at 10:15 AM:

"Japan would have been forced to surrender before September 1, 1945 without the use of the atomic bomb for lack of resources and the destruction of their homeland. The devastation inflicted by the atomic bomb was an unnecessary tragedy that could have been avoided."


Perhaps you can support your opinion with an actual quote or something? :shrug:

[Sterling]

336. Your use of this quote shows you don't really understand MacArthur's

position on this subject. Doug was a twisted mofo sure enough. He was extremely disappointed he did not get his chance to invade Japan. Read this about Gen Mac at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_MacArthur



Wiki:
Allied forces under MacArthur's command landed at Leyte Island , on October 20, 1944, fulfilling MacArthur's vow to return to the Philippines. They consolidated their hold on the archipelago in the Battle of Luzon after heavy fighting, and despite a massive Japanese naval counterattack in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. With the reconquest of the islands, MacArthur moved his headquarters to Manila, to plan the invasion of Japan in late 1945. The invasion was preempted by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and in September, 1945 MacArthur received the formal Japanese surrender which ended World War II.




Me: So his quote you have chosen seems a little out of context given he was actually planning the invasion of Japan, not an embargo, a bloody and massive invasion that would have cost far more lives than the bombs. Even a blockade would have costs far more suffering than the a bombs. I am certainly not accusing you of making up a quote. Gen Mac was a nutty guy, it is not a shock that his words can be inconsistent. It may be worth considering Mac was a political figure and had political ambitions. He was in fact a rival of Truman's politically and may have been acting like a typical Repub and used the dropping of the A bomb as a chance to criticize Truman. What is clear is the quote you chose does not represent a clear picture of what his his opinion of using the atomic bomb.

For example, his ambition to use the bomb against the Chinese is well documented and a primary source of friction between Mac and Truman along with Mac's desire to cross over into China to widen the war.

More Wiki:

On November 19, 1950, with the DPRK forces largely destroyed, Chinese military forces crossed the Yalu River, routing the UN forces and forcing them on a long retreat. Calling the Chinese intervention the beginning of "an entirely new war", MacArthur repeatedly requested authorization to strike supplies, troops, and airplanes in Manchuria with conventional weapons and also requested permission to deploy nuclear weapons in Korea. The Truman administration feared that such an action would greatly escalate the war into full-scale conflict with China and possibly draw China's ally, the Soviet Union, into the conflict. Angered by Truman's desire to maintain a "limited war," MacArthur began issuing important statements to the press, warning them of a crushing defeat. This violated the United States Army's tradition of civilian control of the military and foreign policy, not to mention the constitutional designation of the president as the commander-in-chief, and was considered an act of insubordination.


Me:

I think the use of the bomb is an extremely complicated event in history and cannot be fully understood or judged without looking at the complete historical picture. I don't look at history as a tool to support my point of view but rather an amazing resource that can if approached without bias help me form intelligent opinions. I really feel like the premise of this thread and many of the opinions of the supporters of the OP are attempting to manipulate historical facts to support their point of view rather than inform their opinion.

[nadinbrzezinski]

314. You know why?

`No you don't

Under the US Poltical system the military is SUBSERVIENT to the civilian system

A decision to use a nuclear device, to this day, is one limited to the CIVILIAN commander in chief, aka the President

But I am sure you knew that.

Sheesh, the level of ignorance is truly astounding

[nam78_two]

65. K&R

Welcome back! You were missed :).

[mile18blister]

71. "And the living will envy the dead."

During the Cold War, we had instructions on how to prepare for a nuclear exchange, but we knew the real consequences of pushing "The Button".

[uppityperson]

73. War is hell. Atomic/nuclear bombs, fire bombs, all bombs, are the shits. eom

[RetroLounge]

75. Damn. Those are horrific...

"It always appeared to us that, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."
- General Henry H. "Hap" Arnold
Commanding General of the U.S. Army
Air Forces Under President Truman

"I had been conscious of depression and so I voiced to (Sec. Of War Stimson) 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 this very moment, seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' "
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Japan was at the moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of 'face'. It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"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. 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 taught not to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying woman and children."
- Admiral William D. Leahy
Former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

"I am absolutely convinced that had we said they could keep the emperor, together with the threat of an atomic bomb, they would have accepted, and we would never have had to drop the bomb."
- John McCloy

"P.M. - President Harry S. Truman
Diary Entry, July 18, 1945

"Some of my conclusions may invoke scorn and even ridicule.

"For example, I offer my belief that the existence of the first atomic bombs may have prolonged -- rather than shortened - World War II by influencing Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson and President Harry S. Truman to ignore an opportunity to negotiate a surrender that would have ended the killing in the Pacific in May or June of 1945.

"And I have come to view the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings that August as an American tragedy that should be viewed as a moral atrocity."
- Stewart L. Udall
US Congressman and
Author of "Myths of August"

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
- U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey's 1946 Study

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is the that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it.
- J. Samuel Walker
Chief Historian
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

83. Unpunished war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[Raskolnik]

84. What was your preferred alternative?

What would have resulted in less damage to the civilian population?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

86. Not killing them usually works.

[Raskolnik]

88. What does "not killing them" mean?

Do you mean that U.S. forces should have turned around and gone home, leaving the Japanese leadership in place? Should there have been a blockade until surrender?

The devil really is in the details here. What should U.S. forces have done in August 1945?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

89. Declared "victory" and gone home.

The Japanese capacity to wage aggressive war was zero. The war was, in reality, over. They were facing a shattered economy, an increasingly angry, starving populace, and possible revolution.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were done to dazzle the Soviets (who weren't dazzled) and a purely political act to sate the bloodthirstiness of the American population.

Or, to put it more bluntly, it was a war crime and a crime against humanity.

[Raskolnik]

91. And when Japan rebuilt its capacity for aggressive war ten years later?

The Japanese leadership of the time was exceptionally aggressive and felt that it was Japans right/duty to dominate the Pacific rim. Do you honestly think their imperial goals would have disappeared if they were allowed to remain in place?

Out of curiosity, would you have also "declared 'victory' and gone home" once the borders of Germany were reached?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. The Japanese leadership was crumbling.

And, the nation was shattered. It's colonial outposts were gone. It had no chance of dominating anything.

Actually, we could have "declared victory" and gone home. Germany was done. The soviets would have happily finished the war without breaking a sweat.

Out of curiosity, do you think the firebombing of Dresden was necessary to defeat Germany?

[rockymountaindem]

99. That's what people said about Germany at the end of WWI

We all saw that jumping to conclusions like that didn't help anybody in the long run.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

101. But, Germany had been completely "defeated" in WWI.

Remember? The Versailles Treaty put draconian limitations on re-armament, stripped it of colonial possessions and bankrupted it by demanding war reparations. All of which led to, rather than prevented it, from falling under the spell of the nationalists under Hitler.

Speculation on what might have happened if another course had been followed, is just that, speculation.

Which is what almost everybody is doing in this discussion. I'll stick with mine.

[Raskolnik]

104. That is absolutely mistaken. The German population did NOT believe it had been defeated

And that is what allowed the National Socialists to develop the mythos that the German military had only lost because it had been stabbed in the back by the civilian leadership.

That German population as a whole did not suffer terribly during WWI, they did not see the destruction and suffering brought to their doorsteps, and they did NOT as a whole believe that they had lost the war on the battlefield.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. The German people staged a revolution because they didn't suffer???

The Spartacists and their allies were crushed because the Socialist government cooperated with the rightists and called in the freikorps.

Most Germans thought that Hitler was a flash-in-the-pan populist spouting off nonsense. He stayed in power only because he got lucky. Most Germans were terrified of another war and it was the failure of the west to check him in the Ruhr and Czechoslovakia that finally gave the German people confidence in him. Which deteriorated as the war progressed.

[Raskolnik]

117. No, they really didn't when compared to the Eastern and Western front areas.

I know of very few historians that consider the Spartacist uprising to be a popular revolution. It was organized by a fairly small group of Communists, and it failed because it had very little popular support among Germans.

Following WWI, Germany's infrastructure was intact, its major cities were more or less untouched, and its civilian population did not witness much, if any, of the violence firsthand. The German civilian population simply did not understand that the German military had truly lost the war. National Socialists were able to feed and amplify that myth of being stabbed in the back, and the German population were more than willing to believe that were not, or even could not be, defeated. That wasn't the case after WWII.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Correct very few historians consider it a true revolution

it was more like a riot, and a badly organized one... though better organized than the 1923 Putch.

The fact that this putch received such a lenient sentence also should tell people just how secure the German Republic felt

[rockymountaindem]

125. Okay, I'll stick with mine

I'm not in the mood for argument.

[Raskolnik]

102. Very much agree.

As uncomfortable as it makes us with our modern progressive sensibilities, I think the utter and crushing defeat of Japan and Germany, with the accompanying horrors that defeat brought upon their civilian populations, is largely responsible for their transformation into peaceful nations. I do not think it is a coincidence that two aggressively imperialistic states suddenly transformed and shed their militaristic identities.

[Raskolnik]

100. Japan didn't have a chance to dominate anything at that moment, but you ignored

the distinct probability that Japan would simply have rebuilt its war industries and resumed on its course. Despite your label of "crumbling", Japan's military leadership wasn't going anywhere, and the same core group of leaders that were responsible for the war would have remained in power. What evidence do you rely upon that demonstrates the Japanese would have voluntarily replaced their civilian and military leadership after defeat?

Your answer to my other question is interesting. Am I to understand that you are arguing that the U.S. should have refrained from occupying *any* of Germany and essentially turned the entire nation over to the Soviets? (Leaving aside for the moment the "without breaking a sweat" comment--I would generally consider several million casualties a bit of a sweat, but nevertheless...)


And no, I don't think the firebombing of Dresden was necessary. I believe it was a strategic mistake, but I also am willing to admit that bringing the horrors of war directly to the German population did prevent (or at least contribute to the prevention) of the return of German militarism. The German civilian population was largely spared during WWI, and that played a large part in the German notion that they didn't really lose the war. The civilian population had again been largely spared until the end of WWII, and it was difficult for many German civilians to believe that Germany was, or even could, lose the war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. Rebuilt with what?

Their economy, to be generous, was in shambles. Their colonial sources of raw materials were gone. Their people were starving. One of the reasons for the war, from the Japanese perspective, was that they had to preserve their "lifeline" to the oil, iron, and, even food that were threatened by the western powers and the Soviet Union.

How long do you think the militarists could have remained dominant when the troops didn't get paid and started starve with the rest of the population?

The "horrors of war" didn't prevent the Soviets from becoming a military power. Or the Chinese. The horrors of Vietnam didn't prevent us from becoming the dominant military power in the world.

[Raskolnik]

114. Rebuilt the same way they originally built it

It would have taken decades, but of course the Japanese could have rebuilt their military. The only thing that could have prevented that (other than what did prevent it) was the U.S. taking active measure to thwart Japan's return to industrialization. Do you think a permanent blockage/embargo of Japan would have been practical?

The militarists probably would have remained in power indefinitely. Starvation, suffering, and absolute obedience to authority were not exactly new concepts for the Japanese, after all. I'll ask you again--what evidence you you rely upon that indicates the Japanese were about to replace the military and civilian leadership that led them into war?

The Soviets won in the end. The Japanese were driven from China. To my knowledge, the Viet Cong didn't launch many attacks on the mainland United States, much less raze any cities. I know its not something we don't like to discuss, and we imagine ourselves to be much too sophisticated for such notions, but I think that an absolute, unequivocal, and crushing defeat was really the only way to transform Germany and Japan for the foreseeable future.

[wtmusic]

357. Ah, the "teach them a lesson" approach

which was so effective in Vietnam. Coming from the society which decimated native populations because we "felt it was our right/duty" to dominate North America. :eyes:

[pampango]

113. If we had done that Stalin would have said "Thank you" and taken

the whole country of Japan not just the northern islands.

The "bloodthirstiness" of the American population is interesting. Wouldn't it have been even better to hold off on the bombs and stage an invasion? We could have killed millions of Japanese, instead of just a few hundred thousand.

The Japanese government is fully sovereign now and has been for decades. Have they demanded that we apologize or pay reparations for the atomic bombs? I know that China regularly complains about the Japanese not seeming remorseful enough for the atrocities they committed in China during the war. Is the MSM just keeping the Japanese complaints from my eyes and ears?

[Sterling]

200. Exactly, why don't people here study history a little better

It is amazing the skewed understanding many people here have of history, especially military history. I have read some of the dumbest stuff here on DU in opinions by posters on the subject of military affairs. Yes I know most Americans are dumb as shit about history but what surprises me is the intensity/self assuredness some of those posters have about these half baked opinions. It's more like their personal "belief" of what the facts are. What they want the facts to be rather than actual facts.

[Sterling]

197. "Declared "victory" and gone home." wow that is batshit crazy

Damn glad you were not running the war effort.

[slackmaster]

90. Who would you punish for dropping those bombs back in 1945, and how?

All of the principle players are dead.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

98. I don't really think it's anything we have to worry about.

Truman, et al, are considered "heroes" and, as can be seen here, justifications for mass murder are still in vogue.

[EstimatedProphet]

85. The real point is not what happenned then

It's what's happenning NOW.

Maybe it was the wrong thing to do. Maybe not. Maybe bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives in the long run, maybe not. Maybe they really didn't understand all the consequences then, maybe not. What's done cannot be undone. What is important now id for us to learn from what we did, and it looks more and lore likely each day that we haven't learned a thing. We still have "leaders" talking about winnable nuclear wars, uses of nuclear weapons as tactical wepons, uses of nuclear weapons for demonstrative purposes, etc. Bush still has nuclear weapons 'on the table' for an attack on Iran, which doesn't threaten us anyway.

[wicket]

92. K & R

:kick:

[redqueen]

93. Original Child Bomb

http://www.originalchildbomb.com/

[Oreo]

96. Not sure what's more disturbing....

the pictures or the comments from Racist scumbags that think the US can do no wrong and is justified in any and everything it does. One comment even asked that a bomb be dropped on SF. Who dya think he voted for?

[dysfunctional press]

106. the Atomic Bomb WORKED-

in the years after the war, japan became on of the most peace-loving nations around, with the citizens TRULY horrified by the thought of war.

maybe we need to get a few dropped on us, to teach us the realities of the conflicts we start.

[Pavulon]

149. That would be the marshall plan(ish)

reconstruction that was imposed on a nationalistic, homogeneous population. If bombs fall here I dont think the response would be to your liking.

If that ever happened the people left alive would be in a miserable existence.

That reality would be your neighbors taking your food and water and blowing your brains out. Or vice versa in a fucking anarchic mess. You thing megaton class weapons falling is going to be learning time for the masses?

[dysfunctional press]

188. the marshall plan is NOT what made generations of japanese find war abhorrent

living through hiroshima and nagasaki did that.

and in a way, yes- it would ultimately be a GOOD thing if the massive number of chicken-hawks here in the usa got to see some of the ACTUAL BRUTALITIES of WAR up close and personal.

for instance- if * had done an actual tour or two in the nam, hitting the ho chi mihn trail instead of on the campaign trail- he might actually have a conscience about what we've done to iraq...and maybe even wouldn't have been so eager to go in in the first place.

we have become an evil-leaning nation, at the very least- and a bit of a pox on the planet, when you look at our consumption and pollution numbers...a little learned humility might do us, and everyone else, some real good.

[wtmusic]

360. It would have "worked" in Iraq had we just nuked the whole country

No more sectarian violence!

See the problem?

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. xcuse me? those photos have been part of the public

discusion FOR YEARS.

I am not a that young and I remember seeing them when I was in SCHOOL and I do not mean college either.

Oh and as to those who think that neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were valid targets

Hiroshima housed a multitude of bases (and nobody knew the extent of damage casued by this bomb)

And Nagasaki was an industrial center that produced many essential parts for the war effort

And even after this, there was an attempted coup on the night of Aughst 14 by a Japanese Officer who could not allow the surrender to happen

Oh and by the way, if the Japanese (or the Germans for that matter) had the bomb, we would be disucsing the bombing of either LA or New York.

And no, I am not defending the bombings, just stating some historical reality.

Sheesh... there are days.

[Oeditpus Rex]

133. I was about to post something similar

re "The pictures they didn't want you to see." I've seen probably half the photos on the blog, many in a DVD set, "Enola Gay: Rain of Ruin" and "Hiroshima: The Decision to Drop the Bomb."

Also, this doesn't mean a lot in this debate, but Nagasaki wasn't the primary target on Aug. 9, 1945. Kokura was, but it was shrouded in cloud cover.

[Sterling]

202. Yes I have seen them as well as many like them

but hey don't spoil the fun of the meme that America is evil and we have no idea what deeds our government is responsible for. The op pretends that we have no idea what happened to those cities yet we live in a country that we are actually allowed to have opinions and dislike thing sour government has done. I think by comparison our society is one that encourages introspective thought. Thus we have a subculture of people here who are somewhat self loathing Americans whose default opinion is that we are an evil society and our motives are always the worst of all possible.

We as a country have done some pretty fucked up things but I do believe that Americans are some of the kindest generous people on earth. I am glad I have not succumbed to the anti American view point that is popular here often. I think our country has done far more good for the world than bad.

[nadinbrzezinski]

306. Well they are loud

but they are not the majority

And I will make a statement that some of the USUAL SUSPECTS might consider flame bait

But, this very small but loud minority is exactly the one that gives the right the foothold into claiming that there is a hate america first crowd, and in that small aspect yep, there is one... fortunately it is rather small.

As you said, there are some Fucked up things we have done as a nation.

During the war, the fact that we did not bomb Aushwitz is one, the internment of Japanese Americans (and the much less kown Gernan Americans, which was far less pervasive but still done), are among them

Or before the war, that we did not call the Japanese on the Rape of Nakking as it happened.

Closer to our time line, the whole central america mess, falls in that category

In some ways the war on drugs, truly a failure if I have ever seen one, is more than just a problem.

But what is astounding to me is the level of wilful historical ignorance and ... magical thinking surrounding all of this

btw, will also send you a PM with this, since I see it to be important.

[Odin2005]

120. An invasion would of killed a lot more Japanese civilians then The Bomb did.

:yoiks:

[orleans]

121. what pictures? they are little boxes with red xs through them. n/t

[mnhtnbb]

126. Right click and then click view image to see pix.

[Fla Dem]

128. The pictures are sickening, and the human suffering terrible, but.....

Japan brought this on itself. Its leaders attacked the United States. Its leaders caused massive suffering of many other people and their own people. I would have preferred an atomic bomb not have been used. But it was and it ended the war.

By the way, don't know about the accuracy of the fact these pictures have been hidden for 60 years. I saw them, or ones very similar. There have been a few documentaries over the years about Hiroshima and Nagasaki which have included very gruesome pictures.

Don't believe everything you read on the internets.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080501648.html

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The Original Ground Zero
Cable Documentary Shows Rare Film of the Days After Aug. 6, 1945

By Neely Tucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, August 6, 2005; Page C01

In the National Archives in College Park, the reels are numbered 11002 and 11003.

Shot by a U.S. Army Air Forces film crew in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the months after the atomic bombs were dropped, the reels go from one deformed survivor to the next. Women with scalded faces. A man with melted ears. A boy with no skin on his back. A man with such horrific wounds his hands appear to be leprous

http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_070805.html


HIROSHIMA
Thursday August 4, 2005 at 8pm on CBC-TV
repeating Sunday August 7, 2005 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld
repeating Monday August 7, 2006 at 10pm ET/PT on CBC Newsworld

It was the defining moment of the 20th Century - the scientific, technological, military, and political gamble of the world's first atomic attack. This drama-documentary attempts to do what no other film has done before - to show what it is like to live through a nuclear explosion, millisecond by millisecond.

Set in the three weeks from the first test explosion in New Mexico to the eventual dropping of the bomb, the action takes viewers into the room where the crucial political decisions are made; on board the Enola Gay on her fateful voyage; inside the bomb as it explodes; and on the streets of Hiroshima when disaster strikes.

[undergroundpanther]

144. America brought pearl harbor to itself .

Because we embargoed the OIL the Japanese needed to power thier cities. Japan has no resources really on that island. America was being a bully, and Japan punched it's nose because Japan saw the embargo as an act of war by the US.. Pearl harbor was a event to be politically exploited Just like 9/11 is. This kind of bullshit is what we get when we let psychopath war profiteers lead a country to hell..and keep secrets.

[Pavulon]

148. Read a book

Japan invaded Manchuria and attacked its neighbors. That embargo was a result of those acts. Japan was a tremendous human rights violator. Stop trying to look at history with 2007 glasses.

America defended democratic principles against horrible governments.

The pure uneducated spew on this thread is enough to clog a 24" sewer pipe.

[Bonobo]

232. No, you read this link.

Maybe you can explain it. It sure looks like someone planned to provoke Japan into an overt act of war.

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

http://whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/index.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

312. So the Japanese never invaded Manchuria

and the evil west invented the stories of human rights abuse by the Japanese?

Ok

[Raskolnik]

192. This might be the most uninformed post I've seen in quite some time.

Which event epitomized Japan punching the U.S. in the nose? Was it their invasion and occupation of Manchuria? Was it their systematic rape and murder of millions upon millions of civilians across the pacific rim? Or was it their use of thousands of Koreans as comfort women? How about the biological weapons testing performed on Chinese captives? Were any of those due to the bullying of the United States?

(edit spelling)

[rockymountaindem]

247. More like the US embargoed the oil Japan needed

to power its war machine that was devouring China at that time. The US didn't put any embargoes on Japan until after demanding that they withdraw from China, and until after a League of Nations resolution had demanded the same thing.

Furthermore, as to your assertion later in the thread that the US allowed Pearl Harbor to happen, that's so damn wrong I don't even know where to start.

[seemslikeadream]

131. War is Hell

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/47s.jpg

The city was a sea of flame. The people fleeing out of it were burned too badly to be recognized even as men or women.
Drawing / Terumasa Hirata
Around 8:45 a.m., August 6, 1945
Approx. 2,200m from the hypocenter
Ushita-machi (now, Ushita-minami 1-chome)

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/55s.jpg

People seeking water piled up on each other in the fire cistern.
Drawing / Yozo Tanaka
Around 1:00 p.m., August 7, 1945
Approx. 1,000m from the hypocenter
Teppo-cho

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/57s.jpg

Thousands of bloated corpses drift on the water surface.
Drawing / Shunsaburo Tanabe
August 7, 1945
Motoyasugawa River

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/59s.jpg

The blackened corpses of a woman and the child at her feet appeared to have been trying to get off the streetcar.
Drawing / Miyoshi Kokubo

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/66s.jpg

Mothers moved among the wounded mobilized students who had been laid out. When one found her child, she would burst into tears and embrace her or him.
Drawing / Anonymous
August 7, 1945
Approx. 1,700m from the hypocenter

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/70s.jpg

Near the approach to the bridge lay girls whose clothes had totally burned off.
Drawing / Kazuaki Kui
Approx. 300m from the hypocenter
Aioi Bridge

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/71s.jpg

Utterly alone, a little girl watches over her dead mother. Drawing / Toshio Ushio
Before noon, August 7, 1945
Approx. 2,100m from the hypocenter
Eastern Drill Ground Onaga-machi

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/78s.jpg

A man complained that his head was so itchy he couldn't sleep. When the swollen wound was opened with pincettes, dozens, hundreds of maggots dropped out. Drawing / Kyoko Masaki
Around August 8, 1945
Approx. 30km from the hypocenter
Otake-cho, Saeki-gun (now, Otake City

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/81s.jpg

Outside Yokogawa Station, Yokogawa-cho 3-chome

Cremating on the riverbank bodies gathered in trucks
Drawing / Shigeo Fujii
August 17, 1945
Approx. 2,000m from the hypocenter
Fukushima-cho

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp.nyud.net:8090/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/img/82s.jpg

Countless blistered, gray, unrecognizable corpses
Drawing / Anonymous
3:00 to 4:00 p.m., August 8, 1945
Approx. 250m from the hypocenter
Moto-machi


A People's Record of Hiroshima
Fifty-eight years ago, on August 6, 1945, a single atomic bomb dropped by the United States utterly destroyed the city of Hiroshima. Hundreds of thousands of residents died.

http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/virtual/VirtualMuseum_e/exhibit_e/exh0303_e/exh03034.html

[The Witch]

132. K&R for Hiroshima, a wonderful, vibrant city.

Whose memorial museum does not blame or argue that it never should have happened, but stubbornly looks only ahead to the future. Its only message is that it must never happen again.

The Hiroshima Memorial Museum is not called the Atomic Bomb Memorial Museum. It is called the Peace Memorial Museum.

In that Museum, there is not one single message of blame. I did not feel guilty being an American to be there. The only messages arguing the past were those of the Americans who felt threatened by the fact that the museum dared to present the facts of what happened. they were protesting against an injustice that had not occurred - the facts seemed to them to be an accusation, and so they defended themselves against a persecution that was only in their mind.

Not one word of the exhibits in that museum is wasted on "The US should not have done this" or even on "This should never have happened."

Its ONLY message is "This should never happen again."

If the people of Hiroshima are able to look forward instead of backward, can't we do the same?

[intaglio]

136. Using the atomic bomb was an act of evil

So for that matter were the 1000 bomber raids, the Dresden firestorm, the Tokyo and Kyoto firestorms. The vile nature of your enemy NEVER justifies the use of such tactics.

[Raskolnik]

141. What would you have preferred?

What do you think the U.S. should have done in place of dropping atomic weapons to end the war?

[intaglio]

266. Ended the war without dropping it

Check out the peace overtures that Japan made prior to the use of nukes

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p508_Hoffman.html

/snip According to Harry Elmer Barnes, Truman was aware of the January surrender offer by the Japanese and privately confessed that both atomic warfare as well as further conventional military operations were unnecessary for concluding the war in the Pacific.

[bread_and_roses]

138. An atrocity, a war crime, a crime against humanity

I can't go and look at the photos. There are always apologists for every atrocity. I suppose they also justify the German bombing of London, and Pearl Harbor as valid military tactics as well. One has only to think of what we would be saying "THE" bomb been dropped on two US cities.

[AliceWonderland]

140. Seen pics like this before, but they always shock me. Terrible, terrible. n/t

[undergroundpanther]

142. Doing a monstrous evil

to counteract a lesser evil does not justify the bomb. EVER. Nor does it justify torture EVER. Those two evil acts are unspeakable and so evil so wrong they speak volumes about the defective characters who justify such horrible things.
Besides Pearl harbor was allowed to happen. ON PURPOSE by the US. It was a catalyzing event to get a reluctant america into the war. A war some of the AMERICAN corporations were funding and profiting from the fighting and sales of arms and Reconstruction of all opposing sides .Assholes who funded Hitler include PRESCOTT BUSH.

Pearl Harbor was about an OIL embargo the US imposed upon Japan, which Japan saw as an act of war the US did to them. Japan had no way of powering their cities or homes if shipments of oil was cut off...Than..Pearl Harbor was used like Chimp uses 9/11. It's the same old scam being pulled by the same sort of oily imperial monsters in human suits to manipulate the people..into war.
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/pearl.html

I hate leaders, especially all military,imperial,psychopathic, industrial CEO ,G20,war pigs. Hate and mistrust them all.

[Sterling]

193. You think the A bomb was worse than japan

starting the war killing civilians, ignoring the GC etc....? You have a very strange scale of justice.

[Bonobo]

199. The UP NAAAAAILS it. US trumps up a Casus Belli... again.

USS Maine

Gulf of Tonkin Incident

Lusitania

Babies Pulled from Respirators

Weapons of Mass Destruction

[tabasco]

143. So the 100,000 + infantrymen that would have been killed were expendable?

Funny how the people killed in Hiroshima were more valuable than American infantry that were standing by to assault the home islands. Oh yeah, a lot of Japanese infantry would have been killed too. But they don't matter, do they?

[undergroundpanther]

147. It would have been better

If we did not embargo the oil Japan needed. Japan would not have attacked us if we didn't keep the oil from getting there. WE permitted the corrupted corporate thugs to do that to Japan WE failed to pay attention,. WE need to find a way to get the Bushes and corporate THUGS OUT of OUR government.Take the ruling class away from power.Take the big money out of government and war..And NOT just TRUST the scripted words leaders who manipulate, lie and keep secrets and keep things corrupt..We need to find the truth and take it back from those who hide it to save their own evil hides from accountability.WE need to STOP letting politicians drag us into wars. WE need to demand a different way than war,War never works to stop war.. After the first world war people said to themselves no more war, Yet AGAIN evil leaders that people TRUST,stir up war to make money, Why do we permit this? Answer that and maybe we will find an answer to stopping this stupid waste.Why do we fail to MAKE the leaders come clean,make them stop profiting off the death and suffering of wars.Why do we go like idiots to fight their wars for them we do not see those profits Boeing does, :Lockheed Martin and COMPANY CEOS do,?? Sacrificing ourselves and other nations people do likewise over and over die on the altar of MAMMON after the same old fabricated threats!!?

[Pavulon]

151. Japan attacked manchuria

we embargoed. They would have attacked our interests in the pacific. Germany was busy destroying Europe. Sorry it worked out well. Horrible governments fell, Japan has been at peace for 60 years and germany is not attacking france.

Your neo corporate crap does not apply in 1930 - 1945. There was no lockheed martin in 40, we had a very small army and weak forces compared to our enemies.

Read history, understand it, you are off the mark.

[Bigmack]

177. Tabasco, I love your new Chipotle....

.. but your casualty figures are a little low. Adm. Leahy figured a quarter million casualties on Honshu alone.

However, US casualties of a blockade around Japan would have been zip.

Why invade? The war was over. The entire Japanese army in Manchuria was isolated, and Japan had no air force capable of harming US ships on a blockade line. It would just take a while to work, that's all.

If the Japanese chose to starve themselves, that was their own decision.

The invasion wasn't needed, but MacArthur Truman and others wanted it to teach the Russians a lesson. You've got to question the motives of somebody willing to kill that many Americans when it wasn't needed. MacArthur never did give a shit about US casualties.

Interesting to point out that there was no "insurgents" among the Japanese after the war. Maybe those waves of civilians willing to take one American with them when they died were just wartime hype.

[nadinbrzezinski]

325. You are aware taht the USSR entered teh War

on August 9th, 1945 and it invaded the Kurile Islands...

Oh never mind... history is kind of who cares?

[goforit]

145. I never liked Truman and his decision with this. It could of been averted.

[undergroundpanther]

150. I agree

But you see the ECONOMY needed a war. That's why wars get fought you know, War is a RACKET.Problem Reaction solution i.e. War, than Rebuild. And the war piggies get Money money money!
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

[Pavulon]

159. Like the build up of Japans economy since 45

no war, massive economy. Ruh ro, someone failed econ (macro)

[Sterling]

203. Serious? You think we "needed" WW2

You actually think we wanted WW2? THere are a lot of wars that you could point to that would be far less justified but I don't understand how reasonable people could feel like the US was the bad guy in that one? Unless of curse the are a NAZI or a person that believes in the superiority of the Japanese race.

[Pavulon]

146. Sorry, dont buy it

all this revisionist crap is just that..garbage..

It was better than landing infantry. I have seen the pictures, and more.

It is beyond stupid to apply modern mindsets and frames of reference to nuclear weapons use in 1945.

Ignorant people engage in this tactic.

see unit 731 for civilian attacks, bio warfare was carried out in china.

[Bonobo]

152. We. The US. Dropped. Nuclear. Bombs. 2. Of Them. On People.

Was that simple enough? Do you get it now? Shit! Never happened before.never happened since.

Hell, we invaded and destroyed a country just for THINKING about that shit.

If another country did it, you would have no problem recognizing it as evil and wrong.

WTF is WRONG with you?

Don't you see? Do you really think that the US back then was any different than they are now?

They FORCED the war with Japan. Shoved 'em into the corner until they had to fight or die? Do you understand that?

We forced Pearl Harbor to happen. A legitimate military attack. Which we reacted to as if it was genocide -all the while ignoring the real genocide that was happening, to our knowledge, in Germany! Why didn't we bomb the railroads that were hauling Jews to gas chambers? Huh? Shit!!

We picked a fight, inflamed the people with fear and racism like always and here you are 60 years later as uninformed as you can be and excusing this evil act.

Why Hiroshima and THEN Nagasaki days later? Why? To scare the Russsians that's why. And because they were only little yellow monkeys!

You should hide your head in the sand.

[Pavulon]

155. Nice rant

educate yourself and then sit at the grownups table.

You response in COMPLETE bullshit. There was no concept of nuclear annihilation in 45. We bombed tokyo and dresden (british) and killed hundreds of thousands in an open war. We flattened cities all over europe.

The us was different. Who is they, FDR? We had our pants down at the satart of ww2. It took almost a year to get a nation geared up to war. During the entire war we never had good armor and did not have a decent fighter until late 43.

We were attacked and fought a war. Unit 731 and what japan did in manchuria was evil. Killing an industrialized city in an open war is regrettable.

Put your emotions away.

I would rather those cities evaporate than my family who served in the pacific have invaded, period.

[Bonobo]

157. Most embarassing quote ever: "I would rather those cities evaporate

than my family who served in the pacific have invaded, period.

Nuff said. Grownups indeed. No emotions indeed. You deserve no response.

What about the trains? What about the delay of 3 days?

Your family? Pfffft.

[Pavulon]

161. Sorry you can peddle revisionist crap

to someone else. Japan was part of an open war. During ww2 there was no framework preventing the use of nuclear weapons. Japan had the ability to inflict many hundreds of thousands of deaths on the US forces.

Simple choice for me. Why make something simple really difficult?

Read books from the period, read rhodes. Learn then speak.

Only a moron would try to place ww2 in the box of corporatism and war profiteering. We did not even have the basics at the start of the war.

[Bonobo]

163. Only a fool would defend what we did. End of story. Bye. Sleep well.

[Pavulon]

165. If your ass was on a liberty boat

with a m1 rifle and a entrenching tool and getting ready to land on main land japan.. You would have dropped to your knees and thanked what ever god you pray to that you were not going on that island. Atom bomb, most people had no concept of the weapon, would have been the least of your concerns.

It is fun to apply modern rules to a war from the last century.

We can discuss the civil war next. What modern schools of thought can be applied there for amusement...

[Bonobo]

167. It would be a waste of time to talk to you...

You pretty much just admitted that it was worth it because it saved "your family".

Your persepective is too narrow.

Your reasons for defending the inhuman dropping of 2 nuclear devices are too personal.

There is no point.

By the way, it is easy to find a book that rationalizes your pre-existing POV.

Courage is stepping away from your personal prejudice and reexamining the issue. You clearly have not arrived at that point.

BTW, why didn't the US stop the genocide in Germany earlier? Why didn't we bomb the railroads? Why did we turn back boats of Jewish refugees?

Why did we lie to our own people and claim we didn't know what was happening?

[nadinbrzezinski]

172. I knew a vet

of the 201st Fitgher Squadron from the Mexican Airforce (only unit that deployed from taht army to the pacific)

For the invasion of Japan our foces were so depleted there were two Marine Infantry Divisions from the Mexican Navy, as well as some brazilian units, some coming straight from Italy

Not that this boy knows this... but that is how depleted the forces were by then.

[Bonobo]

175. Too depleted to invade? Then don't invade.

The Japanese ran out of fuel for their ships 6 months after the war started. They had NOTHING left.

Stubborn old men (or women) are the most dangerous thing in the world. Nothing to lose.

[nadinbrzezinski]

178. The world was not ready to take anything less

than complete surrender

You cannot even imagine what that is.

This country has no historical memory

Then again, having the whole nation evolved in war is not something you have a concept off... and that is what was going on.

Nice to sleep in your platitudes and historical revisionism... but the world is not as simple as you think it is.

And that goes as well for WW II. So should we apply modern sensibilities to the Fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E

How about the Polynesian War?

Perhaps Alexander the Great?

The US Civil War?

What other war are you going to apply this revisionism to?

[Bonobo]

181. 60 years ago is not 200 years ago nor is it 2000 years ago.

You want it both ways. You say I can't imagine the history and yet you claim to seeto things completely clearly. What are you, Methuselah? I'm 41 years old. Not exactly a fresh-faced babe.

How long before apologists claim that things were different in Vietnam too and that we couldn't understand how it was?

In 50 years, will people excuse Iraq by saying that people these days "couldn't possibly" understand the terrors of Islamic Fundamentalism?

You toss around words so easily. Words YOU don't understand. Bushi! Ha! Samurai! ha! You sound like a fool mindlessly throwing around words you read in some textbook or saw in some stupid pencil and paper wargame that dumb down people's understanding of the complexities of war.

You think old Japanese grannies were gonna be lining the shores of Japan with sharpened bamboo spears? THAT is what was going to kill 500,000 more people?

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. Hmmm

the logic you are using is the same logic also used by holocaust deniers

Yes WW II was a TOTAL WAR...

Nam was NOT a total war

Iraq is NOT a total war (at least not yet)

In some ways the Civil War was a TOTAL WAR.

[Bonobo]

185. WHAAAAT!? Please explain that one! How is the logic the same?

And how do you answer my question?

It is YOUR logic that is flawed.

You are the one who claims that the past and the present are two unrelated realities that can't be reconciled.

[nadinbrzezinski]

245. Your lack of historical knowledge

see bellow, why didn't we bomb the Germans? easy, they had surrendered by then.

And your utter revisionism is astounding

Not that much different from historical revisionists of all stripes

It is that simple

By the way, your options, surrender all the East to the Russians? Stalin would have gladly occupied all of Japan... for example

Blockade? Pray tell me how do you stop the Russians at that moment, and that was a realistic concern of Western Leaders, who knew that the next 20 to 40 years at the least would be set by whose troops were standing where

Go home? Ok... in case you wonder that might have been an option since this country was on the edge of bankrupcy... but politically it would have been impossible

Invasion, given the plans for invasion called for at least half a million casualties, if the American people at the time knew of the bombs and that they were not used... they would have impeached Truman and rightly so.

Now people say that the Japanese were on the verge of collapse, that was one of the analysis by the planning staff, but that analysis, which you quoted partially also included the political reality of the nationalist party under Tojo...

Perhaps you should go and read a little history... as in real history, and then come back and discuss these matters with adults

Oh and yes the bombing was horrible, terrible et al... and I know you don't believe this, but it did ultimately save some lives. Does that mean we should go ahead and bomb somebody else? (Well if you ask rummy and Cheney of course), but the less sarcastic answer is that ultimately war should be the last option, and that nuclear weapons should never be used in anger or otherwise (with one possible exception, powering an interstellar vessel)

That said, we are looking at this with the distance of history. In 1945 none of the scientists involved or the military personnel believed a nuke was as dangerous as it is. they believed it was a bigger boom...

As to the claims of people getting rich out of the war... yep that is why Willis Jeep went out of business, and the Truman commission did all to stamp profiteering out... and everybody had skin in the game, everybody.

And I will say this again, if the Germans or the Japanese had developed the bomb, they would have bombed us. It had nothing to do with race when it came to bombing, but total war... even if everybody involved had extreme problems with racism.

[Bonobo]

250. Sorry, "Meinji", read this:

Talk about ignorant!

Your statement: "In 1945 none of the scientists involved or the military personnel believed a nuke was as dangerous as it is. they believed it was a bigger boom... "


Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand

http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

Oak Ridge petition, July 13, 1945
http://www.dannen.com/decision/oakridge1.html

Oak Ridge petition, mid-July 1945
http://www.dannen.com/decision/oakridge2.html

Szilard Petition, July 17, 1945
http://www.dannen.com/decision/pet-gif.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

251. As I said I have read them

and I have continually told you they truly did NOT understand

You keep dodging questions....

By the way, I have had the honor of meeting some of the folks who worked on the Manhattan project and SWORE OFF PHYSICS after the project was over

They will tell you... nope they did not understand.

Now some like Teller after the war, searched for a better bomb for the rest of their lives

But what are your alternatives?

I want to hear them... but I expect you to keep dodging it, like most revisionist historians, mostly amateur, do.

Oh and your cute use of the word Emperor, that is what the word means, shows even more your lack of knowledge

Thanks, but I am not the descendant of Amaterasu, nor would I make that claim... perhaps I should use the Japanese expletive for Foreigner insofar as you are concerned.

[Bonobo]

252. Sorry, amateur, Meinji does NOT mean Emperor. But I love seeing you flail about.

[nadinbrzezinski]

254. Yes it does

by the way I will put my degree in history besides yours.

but at this point you keep dodging questions

So your options come down to not use nukes

and do one of the following

1.- Naval Blockade, so exactly how are you going to deal with Soviet Forces, who as of August ninth engaged Japanese forces?

2.- Declare victory and go home... so I expect the East to fall to the USSR, how do you deal with that one?

3.- Invasion... the operational plan called for half a million casualties... and many of the units on D Day, were no longer part of any operational list by D=3, since they were considered destroyed. So exactly where do you think we would be able to get the troops to carry out the invasion and justify taht heavy a toll in the US?

4.- Strategic Bombing, given that casualties were mounting among the civilian population to the tune of tens of thosansds, was that more justifiable?

I make no illusions that the bombing was horrific... but I also understand the history.

So here is your menu... choose and give an explanation for it... one that makes sense at the strategic level, the tactical level, the political level and the future history of the Eastern pacific.

Go at it...

[Bonobo]

255. nani mo shiranai kusei ni omae ha yoku sonna erasou ni iu na.

I'll put my fluency in Japanese against yours anytime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

256. Cute

avoiding the real questions still


you are in good company by the way, most revisionist do

[Bonobo]

258. I was addressing your claim that meinji meant Emperor...

You don't speak Japanese. I do. Meinji doesn't now nor will it ever mean "Emperor"... Or maybe you can show me I am wrong.

With regards to your menu, I'll take something off the menu. How about we do what Szilard and many others suggested. We communicate through diplomatic channels that we have the A bomb and we arrange a test of it on the Sakhalin Islands. It would have likely convinced the Japanese and te Russians that we shouldn't be messed with.

But instead, we dropped it on a bunch of innocent civilians -and with a 3 day period between them for no good reason! Why did we use two different types if it wasn't as a test for our own weapons development?

[nadinbrzezinski]

260. Again you refuse to discuss this

But I will tell you why the option of demostration was rejected by the military planners, who I might remind you did not, for the most part... know that there was a nuclear bomb

We only had two of them.

The fear from the military commanders was that this demonstration would not be enough.

I know that may not be sufficient for you, but you still will not adress the issue and the issue is, you are a revisionist

As to my Japanese, you are right, I don't speak it, but your history sucks... worst than my Japanese

You know why?

I rely on translations, no choice, but you don't even know the history.

And yes Szilard came up with that interview well after the war... and it has been hotly disscussed ever since...

[nadinbrzezinski]

261. And with that good night

I know that you will not adress the real issues...

And I do not intend to spend all night arguing hisotry that you can very well look up on your own

[Bonobo]

267. Thanks for finally closing your mouth.

[nadinbrzezinski]

289. Oh that is what you want,

to shut people who do not agree with you, especiailly those who have history on their side

[Bonobo]

264. History, unlike language, is open to interpretation. And the victors always

get their interpretation into the history books. I know that much.

I am willing to discuss everything. You asked for an option. I gave several. Blockadem demonstration, etc.

The fact that you reject every possible option EXCEPT the one that was taken shows an incredibly closed and incurious mind.

Your Japanese indeed sucks way worse than my history.

Now, for your edification, "Meiji" not "Meinji" is the name given to the reign of the Emperor Hirohito.

His son, Akihito, has been given the name "Heisei".

The term for Emperor (Hint: Use this the next time you want to impress people with your knowledge!) is "Tenno Heika"

[nadinbrzezinski]

290. Historians, not that you'd know this

work with primary sources

And interviewing people when possible (called living history)

The books, written by others, are considered secondary sources and ARE NOT considered superior over the Primary Sources. In fact, in the order of preference they are considered quite inferior. But I am sure you knew this as well... after all since history is written by the victors, you do know what methods historians use to research their material and write what you consider lies into the record.

You want the world to be in the past what it is in the present, and it is not that simple

By the way, in the history of WW II that involves readying things like military reports, casualty reports, Operation Olympic Perhaps and even some things as simple dates on a calendar

Sheesh, why didn't the Americans bomb Germany? Perhaps because the Americans didn't have a bomb ready on time? Could it be that simple?

No it had to be race... why, because YOU WANT TO BELIEVE SUCH, and magical thinking is now fully part of your world and damn the facts.

By the way, as a trained paleographer, I call bullshit on your statement about language... It is and it has always been open to interpretation, we call it art, we call it poetry... any other bullshit you want to bring up?

Now for your last statement, since you insist on having the last IGNORANT word.

Now perhaps you may want to address the questions that others have also asked of you. Give us a good reason why OTHER options were better, and the not dropping a bomb on a civilian target (which they were technically not only civilian targets) is not going to cut the mustard. By the way, alternate histories, usually written as fiction, start by seriously asking the questions we have posed to you, and you are too cowardly or unable to answer.

[Bonobo]

299. You're no historian. You're a "reverse engineer".

You write your history based upon what has happened already and arrange things to fit so that your world "makes sense" to you.

You are also apparently a poseur who claims to speak languages you do not speak.

You seem to claim to be a historian, a trained paleographer and you are most certainly an accomplished name-dropper.

What you are not is open-minded.

Try to imagine a world without nukes. You call it revisionism. I call it revising a stupid warlike mentality. Do you honestly believe that we won't use them again? When there are plenty of people like you that refuse to see the stupidity of using them in the first place.

Your breed of willful ignorance and stubborn bellicosity dooms us. Call me a revisionist. Whatever. If it draws a distinction between you and me and the other people that try to justify terrorism on a massive scale, I welcome that distinction.

[nadinbrzezinski]

301. As I said I will put to my degree besides yours

any day of the week and twice on sunday.

As to trying to imagine a world without nukes, well... perhaps we should try to imagine a world without electricity, how about the wheel? Lets go back enough, perhaps no agriculture, or civilization for that matter.

You see, you can't stop progress, others have tried. (Nor can you put the damn Geenie back in that damn bottle either)

Nuclear power does have its down side, (nukes, and even those may be turned to good use, see that interstellar vessel I refereed to in this thread, a serious design proposal that floats up every so often, as we as a species need to seriously consider interstellar travel... but I am sure you are for stopping that too.)

But what you are dealing with is a technology, and technology on its own is value neutral, it is what you do with the technology that should worry you.

Or are you so much of a Luddite that you cannot deal with even one aspect of technology?


As to willful ignorance look in the mirror... and bellicosity, perhaps you should put your body in front of your believes, I have. I have served OTHER PEOPLE for good...

So don't even go there.

By the way, I will not call total war terrorism, and if you do, you only show your brand of ignorance... please continue to show it. And WW II WAS total war. And the Germans and the Japanese would have used them nukes if they won the race to develop them.

That is a historical fact, even if one that your brand of ignorance does not want to even try to comprehend.

Does that mean we should go nuking people willy nilly? Of course not, and if knowledge of history equals in your mind asking for the nuking of other people, perhaps you need to revise your thinking. You know why? YOU have learned NOTHING from history... except magical thinking. If I believe it is such, it is such, never mind all the evidence is against you.

So with that I can only feel sorry for you... and I mean the sorry part.

Luddites once tried to stop the spinning Jenny as well... and that went swimmingly, didn't it?

[Bonobo]

309. Can YOU distinguish between fact and opinion?

"And the Germans and the Japanese would have used them nukes if they won the race to develop them.
That is a historical fact, even if one that your brand of ignorance does not want to even try to comprehend."

How is that a fact? You must be delusional if you think THAT is a fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

310. Did they have a nuclear program or not?

YES they did

What do you think they were doing with it?

Just answer that simple question.

[Bonobo]

313. OK, they probably would have fine. But it is not a fact. They might not have.

The only FACT is that we dropped not one, but inexplicably two on them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

315. It is not inexplicable

We had them, we used them... the military pilots had no clue what they could do, and Tibbets initial report is clear on that.

And whether you like it or not it ended the war...

I know it is easy to hide in belief, but hey, whatever trips your trigger.

And because we used them, and we saw the effects, neither us or the Soviets were truly willing to actuall use them

Out of that use, came MAD... yes there is a direct corrolation, and out of that use comes our recoiling in horror when we have leaders even sugesting their use.

That is when you learn from history.

[Bonobo]

316. But you said this:

"We had them, we used them... the military pilots had no clue what they could do, and Tibbets initial report is clear on that."

Why use the 2nd after it was clear what the first did?

Why not do a demonstration on an uninhabited island NEAR there. You have not adequately explained that.

Also:

"I know it is easy to hide in belief, but hey, whatever trips your trigger."

Anytime, you wish to speak without the condescending tone, it would be appreciated. It gets pretty tiresome after 300 posts. I am not impressed by degrees, but by open minds.

[nadinbrzezinski]

319. They did NOT know what the bomb did

hell, nobody really knew what happened (outside the local area), until after Surrender, and the Army Survey group went in

Hell, afer the army went in, not only did they send the survey group but also rice, quite a bit of it.

And those two populations have been closely followed ever since, and the research shared, why? We are talking of an open society

I am willing to bet that if the USSR used the bomb and then occupied the country, the horrific results would have been hidden... why? They were a closed society.

But the photos that started this thread, they have been available since 1945 and the information has been openly available

I am willing to bet that is the reason why you have not seen their use agan in warfare.

That is the lesson of hsitory

As to the condescending tone, I just return what I get

[rman]

351. They damn well did know the effects

Not as detailed as we now know, but they knew its power and they knew about radiation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

368. No they did not

not until the Army survey group went in

They knew what radiation could do to a person, but did not expect this to be as extensive as it was

Heck, the destruction also shocked them

I know pesky facts get in the way, but hey, whatever

[GirlinContempt]

275. You're lecturing people about history

but you're HONESTLY suggesting that all the scientists involved had NO IDEA what would happen? Really? That's just stupid.

[nadinbrzezinski]

293. Oppies statement at Alamo Gordo

is telling

I have become the destroyer of worlds....

He quoted the Baghravah Vita

They knew in theory what they were unleashing, but they did not comprehend what it would do.

I've spoken to some of these people. And what one of them said was classic, they were both shocked and astounded at what the bomb did.

A few refused the invitation to work on the Manhattan project, but those folks had no input on what was going on, or what was developed... or for that matter in the coridors of power.

Those who worked on the bomb for all sides, knew they were developing a far more powerful bomb, but nobody really understood what it truly was.

[GirlinContempt]

297. Really?

Scientists working with radioactive materials had no idea what it truly was? Men who'd dedicated their lives to this science and yet somehow didn't die themselves of poisoning? The fears and predictions of the number of tonnes of energy produced meant they had 'no idea' and 'didn't understand'?
I find that hard to believe.
What I MIGHT believe is that they had difficulty understanding the IMPACT of the science on a real human scale, but I think they knew damn well what it would do.

[nadinbrzezinski]

303. They did not have any idea of what the explosion would do

in fact they didn't even know if nature rounded up

Why don't you read some books on the subject.

[GirlinContempt]

352. That's a favorite defense of yours

Telling people to read some books.

If these are ideas you've procured from books, might I suggest looking in to some others? Because any book that suggests dedicated scientists "just thought it would be a bigger boom" is of questionable scientific or historic value.

[nadinbrzezinski]

369. Yep right,

that is why the folks I have spoken to (who incidentally ARE primary sources) don't agree with you

Neither do recent historical works based on extensive papers from the war, aka primary sources

Such as The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Rhodes

Try readying some books... you may be in for a shock

As is, one of the problems we have is the cherry picking some folks have of history.

History is not always nice, and should shock you, but UNLESS you undestand why things happen you can't learn a damn thing from it.

[Bonobo]

370. Seems you've learned that using A-Bombs are okay if WE say it is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

372. You keep accusing me of that

how many times do I need to spell this one to you.

The only valid use of a nuclear bomb is in an interstellar drive...

[Bonobo]

374. Cause you keep saying it was justified. Stop justifying it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

380. What part of knoweldge of why it happened

is not jsutification you keep missing?

Step back from the computer and go take a walk.... and work those feelings out of you

[Bonobo]

382. You have spent countless hours justifying. I will keep feeling. You should start.

[nadinbrzezinski]

383. What part of understanding the reaosns why

are you confusing wiht justifiying?

God you are dense.

You shoudl go take a long hike

[Bonobo]

386. You should clear your head as well if caling me dense is where you are at now.

I will NEVER stop arguing that atomic weapons should not and should never be used.

[nadinbrzezinski]

396. Fact is they were used

and nobody is arguing that they should be used again.

You are the one arguing that if one understand the reasons why somehow we are making the leap that we can justify again, and it isn't so.

That is a red Herring on your part...

You cannot change the past, unless you discover a way to travel back in time, but you can damn well learn from the past

[Raskolnik]

201. Hell yes Japanese civilians would have lined up with bamboo spears!

Are you familiar with *any* Pacific theater history? Look at what happened on Okinawa--roughly 150,000 civilians died during that battle doing exactly what you mockingly dismiss: fighting soldiers with sticks, grenades, and whatever else they could find.

[Bonobo]

204. Bamboo spears!? Pfft.

Yes, they were TRAINING with bamboo spears! So fucking what!?

Do you, suppose, brilliant analyst that you are, that this would have posed ANY KIND OF THREAT to US invading forces?

When that old chestnut about bamboo spears and half a million is pulled out and dusted off, I just KNOW I am talking to a kool-aid drinker. Yes, they were being pushed to resist to the last. True. But so what? In the end, they were ready and happy to surrender. History shows the truth of that.

Seriously, what would they do with bamboo spears? And IF they were so vicious and bloody, did you ever ask yourself WHY they were so peaceful during the occupation? Did the Japanese just transform like magic because the Emperor (Hirohito, not "Meinji" ;)) told them to stop resisting? I'm sure you will say yes, because that FITS in with your racist conception of Japanese as a bunch of robot-like ants...

Looking forward to hearing about how those spears would have killed so many. Maybe you can find even ONE instance when a bamboo spear killed someone, but I doubt it.

In the Battle of Okinawa, it sure as hell wasn't bamboo spears that killed 200,000 Okinawans. More like US shrapnel.

[Raskolnik]

205. You know, the scenario you're so smug about dismissing isn't speculation: it *happened* on Okinawa

Soldiers aren't killed in great numbers by civilians wielding spears and rocks and grenades (although there certainly were some killed in that fashion on Okinawa) but the civilians are butchered by the tens and hundreds of thousands. When a civilian runs towards a soldier with a grenade, or a knife, or a damn pointy rock, that civilian is going to die because war is shitty and the Japanese use of their civilians ranked among the shittiest.

And you have yet to provide an alternative to using atomic weapons to end the war. If the use of weapons is so glaringly wrong, then the alternatives must be fairly easy to point out.

*and here's an idea--next time you want to accuse me of having a "racist conception" because I've actually read some history and have some familiarity with the subject matter, go ahead and keep that to yourself, ok?

[Bonobo]

207. History is written by the winners. That's what you read, in English moreover.

You read crap that supports your position, that's all.

You attempt to justify that which is unjustifiable.

You backed out of the ridiculous claim that half a million of ours would have been killed invading Japan.

You backed out of your ridiculous parroting of the bamboo spear claim.

You cannot justify our failure to try to stop genocide in Germany, so you don't try.

The alternative to using an atomic bomb is NOT using an atomic bomb.

You jumped into a thread which should have been used for reflection on a horrible act perpetrated against mostly civilians and instead you defend it, deaf to the continuing pain that the victims felt and continue to feel. The very height of insensitivity.

You deserve everything that I have said and more.

[Raskolnik]

208. You didn't answer the question, but I'll address your points.

I've read quite a bit that disagrees with my position, some more convincingly than others.

I'm attempting to argue that as undeniably horrible as the bombs were, that alternatives available at the time were even worse.

I didn't cite any half a million number, much less back out of it. I believe casualties for the Japanese and Americans would have ranged well into the hundreds of thousands, if not millions had an invasion been executed. I base this on the experience of American forces throughout the Pacific throughout the war, most notably on Okinawa.

I'm not sure what is ridiculous about acknowledging that many Japanese civilians fought, and showed every indication of continuing to fight, with any weapon available, including bamboo spears, which resulted in horrific casualties. I didn't bring it up. I responded to your post ridiculing the notion (the historically factual notion, by the way) of Japanese civilians fighting in such a manner.

I'm didn't bring up, nor am I trying to justify U.S. failures to end the Holocaust earlier. It was a shameful error on our part.

I "jumped" in a thread discussing the morality and necessity of using atomic weapons to end the war with Japan. I find your particular brand of willful historical ignorance to be the height of insensitivity.

You offer no practical alternatives to using atomic weapons that would have resulted in fewer deaths. "NOT using the bomb", while admirably simplistic, doesn't really get you anywhere. Do you think the U.S. should have used a blockade to starve Japan into submission? Should we have invaded? Put our hands in our pockets and walked away? If you can't answer this question, you really aren't prepared to discuss whether the bombs were necessary or not.

[Bonobo]

209. It is a straw man to suggest that the atomic bomb was the only way to end the war.

But still...

Naval Blockade: Why not? Japan had very few resources left and it would have been impossible to have broken a siege like that with their decimated fleet and outclassed fighter planes. Hell, they were making them out of wood at the end.

After successful landings on Luzon in January 1945, military planners began to seriously analyze the task of invading the Japanese home islands. The Army Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, and most Army leaders believed that an invasion was necessary to bring about Japan's unconditional surrender. However, Admiral Ernest King, Chief of Naval Operations, and General Hap H. Arnold, Army Air Forces Chief of Staff, believed that Japan was on the verge of collapse and that a continued naval and air blockade and bombardment, would produce Japan's surrender. In late April 1945, just one week after Truman reiterated what had been Roosevelt's policy of unconditional surrender, an intelligence report prepared for the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned that unconditional surrender could not be forced upon the Japanese before the middle or latter part of 1946 without a land campaign on the Japanese home islands.(6) Therefore, in April 1945, at the height of the Luzon and Okinawa campaigns, the Joint Chiefs of Staff instructed Admiral Nimitz and General MacArthur to make plans and preparations for an attack on Japan.(7) Admiral King opposed any landing in Japan; he was convinced that the Japanese Army had great advantages on their home islands, and only consented to the invasion after Admiral Nimitz recommended in favor of it.(8) On 25 May 1945, the JCS issued a directive to begin formal planning for the campaign, code-named "Operation Downfall," which was to force Japan's unconditional surrender. Operation Downfall was divided into two major operations, Operation Olympic, the invasion of the island of Kyushu to be executed in the fall of 1945, and Operation Coronet, the invasion of Honshu, scheduled for the spring of 1946.

On 18 June 1945, President Truman held a Japanese strategy meeting at the White House. At this meeting he was briefed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the elements of Operation Downfall. Truman's primary concern was on the number of casualties and whether an invasion of the home islands was necessary. General Marshall gave Truman an estimate of approximately 40,000 U.S. casualties for Operation Olympic.(9) After hours of discussion, Truman approved further planning for Olympic, with an execution date of 1 November 1945. Operation Coronet, if needed, would be conducted in March 1946.

From http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap1.htm

[Raskolnik]

212. Would you have continued strategic bombing along with the blockade?

How many casualties would have resulted from that? Probably hundreds of thousands at a minimum, given the toll the bombings of Tokyo had taken.

Or would you have simply used the blockade to starve Japan into submission? How much suffering and how many casualties would that have produced in your opinion?

(and I'm not at all sure of what you think the copied & pasted text supports in your position)

((edited to add: I'm not at all sure you understand what a "straw man" argument actually consists of--if I had exaggerated or mistated your position to more easily refute it, *that* would be a straw man. Simply taking a position with which you happen to disagree, however, is *not* a straw man.))

[Bonobo]

215. Look, I don't know the answers to those questions and neither do you.

But dropping the bombs was wrong and will be happy to leave it at that. Merely the fact that other options existed should be enought to show that it was unecessary. Why didn't we drop a bomb on Germany? Because they are anglo-saxons?

The question WHY did we drop it on Japan must be asked. And there are many reasons to believe that there was motivation BESIDES simply ending the war -and I think you know that.

As for the half-assed cut and paste, I merely wanted to show that the blockade option was in fact suggested by others at the time.

[Raskolnik]

217. So you don't actually know why, or even if, other options were preferrable?

If the decision was as clearly wrong as you seem to believe, it should not be difficult to make a convincing case that there were other options available that would have resulted in less human pain and suffering. The fact that other options existed is certainly *not* sufficient to show that the bombs were unnecessary unless you can make some sort of practical argument as to why those options were morally and/or strategically superior.

Just calling it "wrong" and leaving it at that isn't sufficient by a long stretch. As horrible as that particular act was, it didn't exist in a vacuum. It cannot be taken out of its context and judged without also judging the alternatives available at the time. To remove the bombs from their context, as you are doing by refusing to actually address the practical consequences of the alternatives, is to ignore the real complexity of the situation.

[Bonobo]

223. Incorrect. There were other options.

The fact that I am not qualified to make a cost/benefit analysis of those options (as you are not), does not invalidate my objection to using atomic weapons. We KNEW the weapons were very dangerous and the scientists who made te damned things even told us not to use them because they weren't sure what would happen.

Yes, you can criticize my insufficient analysis as being out of context, but it seems to me that what YOU are doing is to start with the fact that the Atomic Bombing happened + We are the good guys = it must have been therefore justified.

Your conclusion that they were justified to secure a surrender is as groundless as my suggesting that a naval blockade NECESSARILY would have been better. The fact is that we don't know.

I am starting with the notion that the use of Atomic Bombs is unthinkably wrong and must never happen. Therefore other options must be exhausted.

You on the other hand are starting with the (false) assumption that since we did it, it MUST have been necessary (This is based on nothing. It is a phantasm)

[Raskolnik]

228. Your logic is shaky at best.

I don't believe the use of atomic weapons was correct because we performed the act. I am under no illusion that that U.S. was free from stain in that war, or that catastrophic mistakes weren't made. I don't believe the strategic bombing campaigns were either necessary or effective enough to justify the civilian loss of life, for example. The firebombing of Tokyo cause more civilian casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and it didn't advance the war nearly enough to justify the horrible cost.

I agree wholeheartedly that the use of atomic weapons is unthinkably wrong. Unfortunately for the world, it was the least unthinkably wrong option available to the U.S. at the time. I have made arguments as to why I believe that to be true, but you have yet to offer any practical argument as to why you believe another option was preferable.

[Bonobo]

234. My argument that a blockade was given the Pffft treatment by you because?

Because I couldn't provide an analysis of how many lives/money it would cost?

You reject the idea of a blockade for what reason then? What was the rush? Why not blockade?

[nadinbrzezinski]

238. The non agression pact with the soviet union

between the Japaense and the USSR was about to end.

But I am sure you knew this as well.

[Raskolnik]

240. Yes, because you couldn't/wouldn't even begin to address the practical ramifications of a blockade.

But lest you believe me to be dismissive, I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong.

Would you have performed a blockade by itself, or continued strategic bombing?

[Bonobo]

242. You just go on living in your world where only the US is morally correct enough

to use not one but two atomic weapons on a tiny country and I will live in my world.

I repeat, the fact that I am not capable of addressing those questions is not a reasonable justification for your saying that the use of said weapons was justifiable.

What is your analysis? Would a blockade have worked? With startegic bombing or without? At least I am intellectually honest enough to admit I am not a military expert and blow hot air all over the place.

However, a reasonable person would START with the premise that the use of such weapons is an unforgivable affront against humanity (on a moral level) and an unacceptable case of "letting the genie out of the bottle" or setting a terrible precedent (on a geopolitical level). You, on the other hand START with the fact that it was the only option, but show no evidence for that notion, claiming it is incumbent upon ME to show evidence.

I utterly deny this. I think the burden of proof falls upon you and your friend to justify such a horrible act. Not the reverse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

248. Ok let me add something else

nobody is moral in war.

There is no morality in war.

The US is not better than anybody else or innocent... and in fact, not that you woudl know this either. At the IMT trials Admiral Nimitz reminded the court that we also engaged in unrestricted sub warfare... one reason Doenitz walked.

But once you cross into that place called war... there is no morality.

So stop revising history to fit your perceived illusions.

[Raskolnik]

283. To sum up, then: you aren't reaching your conclusions based on facts or reasonable inferences

Instead, you're arguing what you *want* to be true.

Have a good day.

[Bonobo]

324. To sum up your position.

You take the end results and work your way backwords, reverse-engineering the facts to fit in with the end result.

That is a common logical fallacy.

Sometimes people refer to it as cognitive dissonance.

Postdecisional dissonance studies
Jack Brehm's famous experiment looked at how housewives, after making a decision, favoured the alternatives which they had selected more strongly (Brehm, 1956). This can be explained in dissonance terms — to go on wishing for rejected alternatives would arouse dissonance between the cognitions "I chose something else" and "I preferred that option".
Basic theory

Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant." (Festinger, 1957).
The introduction of a new cognition that is dissonant with a currently held cognition creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.
This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.
Conflicting cognitions: an example

After a lacking evaluation of various blenders, Luke purchases one. Luke's decision is consonant for the preferred qualities of his blender and the disadvantages of the rejected blenders. However, it is dissonant with the defects of his new blender and preferred qualities of the rejects.
Unknown defects: If Luke's dissonance is amplified often enough, e.g. by new, authoritative reviews of his blender, reviews which rate his blender poorly, or, if his experience using his friends' blenders has Luke finding his machine lacking, Luke begins to be overwhelmed by the dissonance related to the blender, at which point he starts to second-guess his choice (buyer's remorse).
Known defects: Luke's previously-unavailable first choice had caused him to "settle" for a lesser choice, for a "placeholder", if you will. Then if his first choice becomes available, Luke will experience an instant increase in the second choice blender's hitherto repressed dissonance.
Under either scenario, Luke experiences full-blown cognitive dissonance when dissonance outweighs consonance.
Tipping point: Luke may act to resolve the imbalance in favor of consonance by exchanging his blender for one that more fully meets his expectations. Or, if no exchange is possible, and Luke is cognitively dissonant enough, he may even outright discard his blender and buy one which is less dissonance-inducing, as consonance should always trump dissonance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

236. Let me interrupt this with another piece of fact

why didn't we drop the bomb on the Germans?

Perhaps because the Germans had surrendered? The Alamo Gordo test happened during YALTA, which occurred after VE Day

Even the most simple of historical facts escape you?

Now while we play what ifs

If either the Japanese or the Germans developed the bomb, they would have used it as well... and likely on a city.

[Bonobo]

246. Perhaps you should read some alternative positions. Here's some help.

Don't bother thanking me.

Leo Szilard, Interview: President Truman Did Not Understand
http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

The bomb didn't win it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1543754,00.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/lieofthecentury.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

249. Perhaps you will be surprsied to know I have

And perhaps a cursory readying of the time line of WW II will clarify this for you

VE day was in May, And my mistake it was Postdman where Truman learned that the test was succesful, that was July 17, 1945

So you wanted them to drop a nuke on a country that HAD SURRENDERED to prove a point?

[Thothmes]

353. Fuel

I think you mean the Japanese ran out of fuel for their ships 6 months before the war ended. The Japanese battleships and cruisers that fought at Latte Gulf (sic) and Auriga Straits(sic) in late 1944 were not powered by sail.

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. Only those who do not know history

peddle revisionist crap

You see

in case you did not know this

Among other things

The Japanese Samurai and Bushi fighitng in WW II never signed this cowardly thing called the Geneva Convention'

What is more, they would not surrender, no that is not crap, that is reality.

And the invasion plan removed from operational active units landing units within 72 hours

Casualties, allied were expected to be at least half a million

Slept well lately?

[Bonobo]

173. Samurai? Bushi?

Half a million? Read propoganda much?

[nadinbrzezinski]

184. Nope

Officers in the IJA and IJN saw themselves as Samurai and lived the samural code

Soldiers saw themselves as Bushi... common soldier

Read history much?

Oh and one more thing, all served for the Emperor and they were GLAD and HONORED to die for the Emperor, for the Meinji, and surrender was not only a personal dishonor but that of the Meinji

[Bonobo]

190. "Meinji"? Stop it, you're really embarrassing yourself.

THE MEINJI!

"Look out! Here comes the Meinji!"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

198. you may laugh, but you truly do not understand why

an Army Colonel attempted a coup the night before the surrender

[GirlinContempt]

187. "What is more, they would not surrender, no that is not crap, that is reality."

False statement of opinion as truth.

[Guaranteed]

164. I don't think most people today understand what it was like to have to defend

our country without the comforting backup of nuclear weapons.

I don't think they, we, understand what "fear" and "defending freedom" truly are.

[meow mix]

211. nice way to advocate nuking babies

go to hell you belong there.

[Raskolnik]

194. If you disagree with the decision to use atomic weapons, what would have had the U.S. do?

Invasion? Blockade? Continued strategic bombing? Go home and leave the Japanese leadership in place? Let the Soviets handle them?

[undergroundpanther]

206. Thank you bonobo

You are far more articulate than I.

[undergroundpanther]

153. And didn't those 1945 scientists

WARN the fucking war profiteers thinking of dropping that fucking bomb that if it went off it could incenerate the world? To some war hawk psychopaths in the white house the danger of possibly incenerating the entire world was a justifyable risk.
That's why I hate war profiteers and all "leaders" who stir up war always end up making money off wars.When will people realize war never stops war. People could if they wanted refuse to be a gun in a human suit. Starve the war beast.

[Pavulon]

156. Nope

Read The Making of the Atomic Bomb , Rhodes. Learn, then speak.

[bridgit]

154. "During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation...

"...of the casualties resulting from the abandoned invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall. As of 2005, all the American military casualties of the following sixty years - including the Korean and Vietnam Wars - have not exhausted that stockpile.

The record shows that the Japanese were preparing even the civilians to fight the war to the last man women and child. They may have been close to their last leash but they were far from done fighting."

war must surely be the the most sorrowful, heart-struck human experience...too sad

[AnOhioan]

169. The use of atomic bombs was not necessary

A blockade, not invasion, of the Japan, would have brought the war to an end within months. The bombs were used to serve notice to the Soviets. Nothing more, nothing less.

Two cities completely destroyed, thousands killed.

Yes, it does rank as a crime, a crime for which the guilty are already beyond reach.

I consider the firebombing of Tokyo, Dresden and other cities to be equally abhorrent.

Was defeating Germany and Japan a necessity? Yes.

Was destroying cities solely to damage the morale of our enemies or give notice to future adversaries a necessity? No.

I wish the bombs had never been used. But they were, and their use has haunted the world ever since.

It is my fervent prayer that the use of nuclear weapons will never again occur. It is also my hope that the images in this thread serve as a reminder to us all that no country, the US included, has a history that is unblemished.

[MedleyMisty]

196. evil is the lack of empathy

So...if we start throwing our nukes around and other countries start throwing theirs and one hits your city and you survive to die a slow agonizing death, are you going to argue that it was the right thing for the other country to do while waiting to die?

I rather like the museum's take on it, mentioned in a previous post. Don't worry so much about whether or not it was necessary. Just know that it should not happen again.

Every side commits atrocity in war. War is an atrocity. Maybe, if we could stop arguing about what is wrong and what is right in war and realize that war itself is never right, we might survive for a few more centuries. Of course we won't, and I fully expect that I will be a shadow on a wall one day. Eh - I guess if we have enough warning we can go up to my mother's place in the boondocks and watch the world die.

You are the Americans in the Bataan Death March. You are the Japanese civilians who died horribly. You are the people on both sides who did horrible awful things, and you are their victims. You can feel their pain, and you should know that it should not happen again. But it will, because we're human.

On NPR a while ago two American veterans of Iwo Jima were interviewed about the movie Letters From Iwo Jima. One said "Now I ain't gonna go to no sushi store or nothing like that, but those Japs were writing letters to their parents and their girlfriends just like we were."

I cried. Both for his pain and the suffering that he went through and because it took him so long to see that all humans are human. I just hope that the planet and the species survive long enough for all of us to learn that.

[LynnTheDem]

216. It took decades, but thank God the US majority now feel nuking Japan was WRONG.

And someday the myth of "millions of US lives saved" will be spewed only by the forever-ignorant rightwingnut freepers.

[Raskolnik]

218. Ok, what do you think the U.S. should have done in August 1945?

What actions would have resulted in fewer casualties and/or less human suffering in the long run?

[LynnTheDem]

219. Oh dear!

You're not one of the ones who still believes the "millions of lives saved" bullshit, are you?!

[meow mix]

222. must be a full moon?

a lot of em out tonight..

[LynnTheDem]

230. Must be.

Amazing, really, how many purportedly progressive Americans still don't know the facts regarding America's war crimes.

Then again, most Americans, progressive or not, don't even know the US was indicted & found guilty of state-terrorist deaths of 30,000 civilians. Ignorance is the #1 problem we have in America, imo.

[Raskolnik]

235. Yeah, its pretty odd to expect a reality-based argument

instead of vague, historically fuzzy pronouncements.

*Crazy*

[LynnTheDem]

253. "historically fuzzy pronouncements" such as "saved millions of lives"?

Or "historically fuzzy pronouncements" such as "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mkilitary targets"?

Or "historically fuzzy pronouncements" like "it ended the war"?

Or just crazy shit like "the least horrible option"?

Here's a "crazy";

Chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. in 1990:

"the consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it."

-Alperovitz, Decision, pp. 6-7.

Joseph Grew, Under Secretary of State; John McCloy, Assistant to the Secretary of War; Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy; Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy; General Douglas McArthur, Supreme Allied Commander Dwight Eisenhower, to name but a few more of those "crazies" who believed nuking Japan was wrong & unnecessary.

[nadinbrzezinski]

257. Hiroshima contained many a military target

such as headquarters for an army group. IIRC the bomb hit close to it.

It also contianed a variety of other military bases

Yep by that same logic the town I live is a valid military target and if nuked, I hope it is quick

Nagasaki had several manufacturing facilties for military essential goods... and like bearing factories in Euroep was cosidered a valid target. Ironically it was not the main target on the day, since the primary target was cosidered a more valuable point, since it contained a large munitions storage facility

If you ever read the Geneva Convention you'd know that hitting an MHQ is a valid target. Now the collateral was a tad disgusting... and quite more serious than woudl have occurred with firebombing.

As to it ended the war, most mainstream historians accept this as a matter of fact. It has nothing to do with the Kool aid, but this was the last straw and the Emperor finally voted in the council and overrode Tojo and the war party. Some facts help at times

As to the least horrible option, Lynn I hate to point this to you but in some ways it may have been... and this statememt is only one taken with the distance of history and the knowledge of what the other options would have done... in deaths, in casualties and other factors

Now I will ask you the same thing... what are your options? Give me a good solid argument of why we should have carried out Operation Olympic.

Or give me a good solid option why we should have declared victory and gone home

I want the alternative hsitories to cover what would have happened in the Eastern Pacific for the next ten, twenty and fifty years.

Oh and I wil ask this in all seriousness, do you beleive that if the Japanese were able to develop the A Bomb they would not have dropped it on an American City? (Assuming they could reach it)

[LynnTheDem]

263. Sorry but no, it was never "the least horrible option".

And sorry but what an insane and idiotic (and bloody disgusting) question; "if the Japanese were able to develop the A Bomb they would not have dropped it on an American City?"

Gee we better nuke Iraq! Coz if they were able to develop the A Bomb they would drop one on an American city! And they would do it to us if they could do it to us, so we better by gawd do it to them first!

That would be "the bush Doctrine". Sick.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=myth+bombing+Japan+saved+lives&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=myth+millions+lives+saved+atom+bombs+Japan&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

[Bonobo]

265. B-But Lynn, you're talking to a "historian". We're revisionists!

They know more than us "ama -choors"!

[LynnTheDem]

276. Yeah, not to even mention that US Bombing Survey group which

determined that the bombs had been totally unnecessary.

Gee, not just half the US government, not just most the top military brass, but even the US government's own Survey group found nuking Japan to be unnecessary!

Damn revisionist ama-choors!

Them nukes saved BILLIONS of American lives! HOOHAH!

[Raskolnik]

279. Oh! So you agree with the USBSG...

In your extensive reading of internet snippets and collections of quotes, I'm sure you've realized that although the USBSG was fairly ambivalent about the use of atomic weapons, its preferred alternative was to use U.S. air superiority to continue strategic bombing until surrender. That meant continuing bombing raids on the scale of Tokyo, which actually cause *more* civilian casualties than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But I'm sure you knew that.

I'm glad we figured this out. Thanks, Lynn. You've been very intellectually honest, you certainly haven't tried to caricature my argument to strengthen your own, and you haven't been at all shrill during this conversation.

Have a great day.

[LynnTheDem]

343. rotfl

You're very welcome!

Have a fantabulous day, yourself! :)

[nadinbrzezinski]

291. Whether you know this or not, does mot matter

but the Japanese and the Germans were also in the race to develop an A bomb.

The Germans used light water

The Japanese used Fision too

Now you think either of them were developing the capacity to make nukes for a demonstrtion only or to throw flowers and candy at us?

Any of the major combattants who developed a nuke was going to use, like it or not... that was a reality well understood at places like Benchley Park (why they launched an operation against the heavy water for the Germans) It was also a reality undershoot at the highest levels of all governments...

Sheesh the ignorance is amazing.

[Thothmes]

270. Crazies

How many of these men walked into President Truman's office and told him that using the Bomb was wrong/immoral/unnecessary and the the Japanese were begging to surrender to the Allies?

[LynnTheDem]

277. Many.

Go read about it at the National Security archives.

[Raskolnik]

224. I believe you didn't answer the direct question.

I think that the use of atomic bombs was unimaginably horrible, but unfortunately it was the least horrible option at the time.

I believe the other options available, i.e. invasion, blockade, strategic bombing, etc., would have led to more casualties in the long run.

I do not believe the U.S. would have suffered millions of casualties in an invasion, but the total combined casualties probably would have been in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions.

[LynnTheDem]

226. Actually, you are in fact incorrect that it was "the least horrible option"

And had you bothered to properly research the subject, you'd have known that.

Start with researching what most of the top US military brass thought of nuking Japan. Hint: they didn't agree with you.

:)

[Raskolnik]

233. I'm sorry, but you still didn't offer any sort of argument.

I can only assume you have none to offer.

Have a good night Lynn.

[LynnTheDem]

241. I have facts.

I don't need arguments.

If you would like some links to facts, no problem. :)

[Raskolnik]

285. Yeah, do you have any cut & pasted lists of cherry-picked quotes on some guy's website?

Because that would really cinch it for me if you could provide something that persuasive.

[LynnTheDem]

340. How 'bout the NSA?

No, that would be more of that there "cherry-picking"!

:rofl:

[Raskolnik]

362. No, I think that would be great!

If you could cut and past a list of quotes from sources you've never read, removed from their context, that ignore the alternatives that the critics of the bombs were proposing and their resulting costs, all the while pretending that they somehow validate your shifting, poorly rationalized position, that would be super!

[meow mix]

221. for starters how about not nuking babies

?? sound good?

[Raskolnik]

239. Ok, that's a great starting point--would you have preferred to bomb them conventionally,

starve them, kill them during an invasion, or some other option?

What would you have had U.S. forces do in August of 1945?

[meow mix]

274. cut a deal with the russians and isolate them, attack thier military

not thier babies. what else to do? if you advocate nuking babies your on the wrong side. period.

[Raskolnik]

281. Hmmm...do you think the Red Army would have killed fewer civilians?

Would making a "deal with the russians" have involved allowing them to retain Japanese territory? Do you have any idea how the Red Army treated civilians?

I believe prolonging the war in order to allow the Soviets (not the Russians) to enter the war against Japan in force would have caused a greater amount of suffering to the Japanese, as well as placed the U.S in a much worse position post-war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

292. So bombing them with firebombs is ok

just checking.

Once again, when those bombs when down NOBODY knew exactly what they unleashed, and in the mnds of many it was just a bigger boom.

[meow mix]

298. bombing who with firebombs? babies?... please elaborate

if you say, should we bomb babies with firebombs? the answer is obviously no.

[nadinbrzezinski]

302. Read what you wrote

and then you may get why I asked it.

[SweetGrass]

361. Speaking of babies...

I wonder how many died because they were caught on the end of a bayonet during WWII in the Pacific, while their mothers lay dying from the spontaneous C-section they received. I'm sure the Japanese of that era who did such things for amusement would have drawn the line at nuking our babies, had that been an option for them. That would have been too evil. :eyes:

If you're on the wrong side if you "advocate nuking babies", then playing catch with them on a bayonet is the right side, I guess.

My comments are not directed exclusively as a response to your post; they are related to the posts that got me into this thread as well. When people are dug in, they're dug in. Pretty much everyone here, including me, is dug in...so I'm out of this one.

[Hekate]

220. All your photo icons are broken. However I have seen MANY pix of those victims in my lifetime.

I was born right after WW II ended (i.e. a baby boomer), and my childhood and adolescence were filled with opportunities to see photos of concentration camp victims (both Europe/Holocaust and Asia -- the Japanese were not tender to their prisoners) and victims of the bombs that fell on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They're out there in abundance.

Perhaps it has something to do with American Amnesia that you have not seen many. We seem to like to forget history and its horrors, and in a couple of generations neglect to teach our children much about it.

You are right to bring it up -- the images should resurface every so often, and the debate over the use of nukes kept alive. Especially now, with the insane occupants of the WH and Pentagon talking about using them for the past several years.

Hekate

[nofurylike]

259. thank you for posting this, Jcrowley. important. sigh....

:cry:


peace

[Spider Jerusalem]

262. "Most dreadful slaughter of civilians in modern history"?

Lest we forget, the Japanese killed three hundred thousand at Nanking. In rather gruesome ways. Infants impaled on bayonets. Women gang-raped, and their bellies slit open afterwards.

The use of nuclear weapons on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrible; but in comparison to what happened at Nanking, it's almost merciful. (This isn't to suggest that one atrocity justifies another; I merely disagree that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "more dreadful" than the horrors perpetrated by the Japanese Army in China.)

[SahaleArm]

268. Didn't you know that Pearl Harbor was an inside job...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre">Nanking Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731">Unit 731

Of course history is written by the winners so in reality none of this occurred.

:sarcasm:

Cue the deniers and a link to some geocities website.

[ecstatic]

273. but but but--the massacre saved lives and ended the war!!

we only did what was in their best interest. The attack wasn't racist, we would have done the same thing to Germany!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[pampango]

278. see post 127.

Invasion vs. Atomic Bombs.

The bombs were not ready in time, so Germany got the invasion from the US and the Soviet Union and millions died. Japan got the atomic bombs and hundreds of thousands died. The Soviet Union had already invaded the northern Japanese islands. An invasion of Japan by the US and the Soviet Union would have resulted in casualties like those in Germany perhaps worse since Japanese civilians (on Okinawa for example) fought much more tenaciously than German civilians did.

[nadinbrzezinski]

294. Ok a simople looksie at a calendar may answer this

for you

When was Victory in Europe declared? (VE Day) May of 1945,

When was the Alamo Gordo test done? (I fear I will have to clarify, the Alamo Gordo test was the first live test of a nuclear device, and was done to make sure the bomb worked, and boy there were way too many things that could have made that bomb not go off)

But back to dates, when was the test done? July of 1945

Can you see why we didn't drop it?

And it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Germans were white... Unless we had a way to time travel backwards... we were not about to drop the bomb on a surrendered and occupied country.

Not to say that there wasn't a racist component in how we fougth the propaganda war in WW II... but if the bomb had been ready on time, you betcha it would have been released over a German city.

On the other hand, if the Germans or the Japanese had won the A bomb race, they would have dropped it on any allied city.

Is this clear enough for you?

War is not nice, and total war raises the bar by orders of magnitude of the horrors done to each other.

[shery]

295. Did really japenese forget about what americans did to them ?

I wonder if japenese are really friendly as they seems to americans

[Bonobo]

300. I know why there are apologists now.

It's a common fallacy of logic called the "historical fallacy"

Read here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theory#Historical_Fallacy

[nadinbrzezinski]

305. My god you are not even using the term

right.

But that is ok... to each its own

[Bonobo]

311. Teach me. I am ready to learn, at least, how to use that term correctly.

Seriously. It is a bit off the subject of nukes, but in this I will be pleased to accept your explanation.

I would love to de-escalate. I know people have differing opinions.

I will never accept that dropping the bomb was "acceptable" because it is willful mass-murder.

I cannot accept it. I will not accept it's use again.

Let's be pragmatic for a second. Would you advocate it being used again? Against Iran for example, should they pursue a policy which would lead to them having their own nukes?

[nadinbrzezinski]

317. I am not advocating the use against Iran

my only acceptable use of a nuclear weapon is to power an interstellar vessel, as in project orion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

Clear enough

Anyhow you are using a term used in science and philosophy of science that does not apply to history or historical method. That is why I laughed

to add, the Iranians are free to develop the technology (and in theory the NPT should prevent them from developing actual nuclar devices

If they did... perhaps MAD on a smaller scale will bring an ilusion of peace to the Middle East... yep cynical, but it stopped us and the Soviets from blowing each other, perhaps that is what will stop both sides in the ME from blowing each other... of course the risk is that one or both sides will blow each other in the end)

[Bonobo]

318. I think you are wrong. It is a broad logical fallacy.

The historical fallacy occurs when "a set of considerations which hold good only because a completed process is read into the content of the process which conditions this completed result." <1> More simply stated, one commits the historical fallacy when he reads into a process that which comes about only as a result of that process.
An example is helpful for understanding the concept:
To give an example of this that is easier to understand, imagine you have come to Earth from another planet and are examining a loaf of bread to discover how it was made. Thinking exclusively in terms of parts and ingredients you might proceed to analyze (break into parts) the various ingredients in the bread. You would, for instance find wheat, but also air. You might conclude then that part of the process of making bread includes mixing in some air. This is wrong. A baker does not mix air into his bread. Rather he adds yeast and a chemical process (when heated for a duration) causes air to rise in the bread. By not understanding the "historical fallacy" you have read into the process, as one of its components, something that comes about only as a result of that process. You imagined air as part of the cause, when in fact air is merely a result of the process. You read the effect into the cause. That is the historical fallacy. In process theory effects are considered to supervene upon processes that are not necessarily reducible to the parts of that process.
The historical fallacy has implication in psychology, analytic philosophy, logic, and metalogic. For instance many postmodern analytic philosophers apply logic to understanding metaphysics before first inquiring into the cognitive and perceptual processes which give rise to logic itself. Thus many process theorists might contend that much of analytic philosophy is undermined by the historical fallacy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

320. If you think so

that is fine... As I said, I cannot argue with you, or discuss or anything else

Your mnd is made up

[Bonobo]

321. Okay, by all means don't look in the mirror and consider you may be wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

322. Perhaps because I know the correct application

of the term historical fallacy, Sorry...

But it has a very specific use... sorry if I happen to know it.

mea culpa

Whatever...

By the way I did notice that you would not even touch the Orion Project, which as things are NASA considers from time to time...

In my mind that would be the best use of nuclear weapons

[Bonobo]

323. I will check out the Orion Project. Thank you for the link.

I think our conversation is over now on this subject.

Wanted to add this on cognitive dissonance:

Postdecisional dissonance studies
Jack Brehm's famous experiment looked at how housewives, after making a decision, favoured the alternatives which they had selected more strongly (Brehm, 1956). This can be explained in dissonance terms — to go on wishing for rejected alternatives would arouse dissonance between the cognitions "I chose something else" and "I preferred that option".
Basic theory

Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant." (Festinger, 1957).
The introduction of a new cognition that is dissonant with a currently held cognition creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.
This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.
Conflicting cognitions: an example

After a lacking evaluation of various blenders, Luke purchases one. Luke's decision is consonant for the preferred qualities of his blender and the disadvantages of the rejected blenders. However, it is dissonant with the defects of his new blender and preferred qualities of the rejects.
Unknown defects: If Luke's dissonance is amplified often enough, e.g. by new, authoritative reviews of his blender, reviews which rate his blender poorly, or, if his experience using his friends' blenders has Luke finding his machine lacking, Luke begins to be overwhelmed by the dissonance related to the blender, at which point he starts to second-guess his choice (buyer's remorse).
Known defects: Luke's previously-unavailable first choice had caused him to "settle" for a lesser choice, for a "placeholder", if you will. Then if his first choice becomes available, Luke will experience an instant increase in the second choice blender's hitherto repressed dissonance.
Under either scenario, Luke experiences full-blown cognitive dissonance when dissonance outweighs consonance.
Tipping point: Luke may act to resolve the imbalance in favor of consonance by exchanging his blender for one that more fully meets his expectations. Or, if no exchange is possible, and Luke is cognitively dissonant enough, he may even outright discard his blender and buy one which is less dissonance-inducing, as consonance should always trump dissonance.

[Bonobo]

327. Cognitive Dissonance must be the explanation for the proponents of mass-slaughter after all.

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

Postdecisional dissonance studies
Jack Brehm's famous experiment looked at how housewives, after making a decision, favoured the alternatives which they had selected more strongly (Brehm, 1956). This can be explained in dissonance terms — to go on wishing for rejected alternatives would arouse dissonance between the cognitions "I chose something else" and "I preferred that option".
Basic theory

Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant." (Festinger, 1957).
The introduction of a new cognition that is dissonant with a currently held cognition creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.
This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.
Conflicting cognitions: an example

After a lacking evaluation of various blenders, Luke purchases one. Luke's decision is consonant for the preferred qualities of his blender and the disadvantages of the rejected blenders. However, it is dissonant with the defects of his new blender and preferred qualities of the rejects.
Unknown defects: If Luke's dissonance is amplified often enough, e.g. by new, authoritative reviews of his blender, reviews which rate his blender poorly, or, if his experience using his friends' blenders has Luke finding his machine lacking, Luke begins to be overwhelmed by the dissonance related to the blender, at which point he starts to second-guess his choice (buyer's remorse).
Known defects: Luke's previously-unavailable first choice had caused him to "settle" for a lesser choice, for a "placeholder", if you will. Then if his first choice becomes available, Luke will experience an instant increase in the second choice blender's hitherto repressed dissonance.
Under either scenario, Luke experiences full-blown cognitive dissonance when dissonance outweighs consonance.
Tipping point: Luke may act to resolve the imbalance in favor of consonance by exchanging his blender for one that more fully meets his expectations. Or, if no exchange is possible, and Luke is cognitively dissonant enough, he may even outright discard his blender and buy one which is less dissonance-inducing, as consonance should always trump dissonance.

[nadinbrzezinski]

329. So once again we ask

what is your solution to end the war?

No more platitudes, step to the plate and tell us, exactly how you have ended the war and the consequences....

Cognitive Disonance has nothing to do with the bombings OF ALL SIDES during the war

Everybody involved understod the horrors.

So once again

what would have been your prefered way to end WW II?

[Bonobo]

330. No, it's you who is ducking.

"Cognitive Disonance has nothing to do with the bombings OF ALL SIDES during the war"

The theory is not an attempt to explain the bombing, but the justification of the bombing.

Similarly, I'm trying to explain to myself how people like you could still exist that justify something like that when I brought up my "reverse-engineering" issue (which I think is quite similar to this logical fallace (historical fallacy) that I brought up.

You dismissed both blithely without any reasonable consideration which is EXACTLY what you would predict with someone suffering from that type of moral color blindness.

[nadinbrzezinski]

331. Ok I will ask ONCE AGAIN

WHAT IS YOUR WAY TO END THE WAR? HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE USSR? HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THE POLICIES IN THE EAST THAT THE USSR WAS FOLLOWING AND THE FACT THEY ENTERED THE WAR ON AUGUST 9TH, 1945?

AND BY THE WAY, HISTORY IS NOT REVERSE ENGINEERING, IT IS HISTORY. AT TIMES HISTORY IS NOT PLEASANT BUT DUCKING THE ISSUES DOES NOT LET YOU LEARN FROM HISTORY, AND YOU ARE DUCKING, SERIOUSLY DUCKING.

STOP YOUR DUCKING AND ANSWER HOW IF YOU WERE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES YOU WOULD HAVE DEALT WITH ALL THE ISSUES CONCERNED, AT BOTH THE TACTICAL AND THE STRATEGIC LEVEL?

WHAT IS MORE, EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IN ALL OF THIS WE HAVE YET TO SEE YOU ADDRESS THE RAPE OF NAKING, THE TREATMENT OF POWS, THE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE EXPERIMENTATION OF THE JAPANESE AS WELL AS THEIR RUNNING OF PLEASURE HOUSES IN KOREA. (I MAY ADD, THIS IS JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG)

YO9U CANNOT, THAT IS WHY YOU KEEP DUCKING AND BRINGING THE MISUSE OF LANGUAGE TO THE PLATE.

Perhaps using caps will make this clear for you.

For the record none of us who KNOW history have said it was all peachy or wonderful or applaud the action, that is YOUR interpretation. But we do understand the historical context and why it happened.

Part of that context are the questions you keep ducking and dodging.

Nor are we saying that the US was a saint, far from it, but perhaps in your view the world would be a better place if the axis won.

[Bonobo]

332. I have answered and I wil repeat. Will you listen this time I wonder and then answer me?

The US should have arranged a demonstration as some suggested. That surely would have had the same effect wrt showing Russia that we meant business as the ACTUAL dropping of 2 bombs on cities comprised primarily of civilians.

If this did not work, we could have blockaded and fuck Russia if they didn't like it. It might have saved us the cost of 40 years of military escalation and Cold War to have dealt with it then. If russia really wanted to make an issue of it then, I think we could have handled them. They lost what 20 million soldiers in the war? How much further were they prepared to fight? We were the only country left standing at that point.

Now... to the issue of cognitive dissonance and drawing a conclusion based on the end result and working backwards... It is a well-established phenomena that people tend to justify their actions AFTER they have made a choice, no matter how wrong they are. I can do the reasearch and find the studies if you like, but I am reasonably sure you will say that such a thing could NEVER be true about you.

Now please turn off your cap locks. That one hurt my eyes.

Also, if you will act about 10 years older and not make other snide, snarky remarks on the board behind my back, using my words in ways that you think are oh so clever, I will reciprocate by attempting to raise the level of my dscourse as well (which I already tried once and was rebuffed by you).

[nadinbrzezinski]

333. And many of us have explained to you

incessantly why the demonstration was rejected... you may call it racism, but history bears it out. In fact even AFTER the two nuclear bombings there was an attempted coup by a IJA Colonel, the night of the 14. The Colonel was not supported in this act by General Anami Korechika, secretary of war who supported the continuation of the war. In the end the general committed Sepuku, but there was an attempted coup by one of his officers even AFTER Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Emperor adressed his people for the first time on the 15, announcing the surrender.


What is more Hiroshima was the headquarters for a major Army group and Nagasaki was a mission critical factory for Mitsubishi... under the logic of mission targetters during the war (on all sides mind you) those were valid targets, and civilians were seen by ALL sides as collateral damage, an unfortunate effect absolutely but seen as a strategic necessity by ALL sides. War was brought to civilians, and that was a fact of life, one that is alien to modern Americans.

I know facts are stubborn,

I also know the fact that the fire bombing of tokyo killed far more people still escapes you, nor did it lead to a softening in the attitudes of the War Council. In fact the final vote that the Emperor broke was three to three to continue the war and that was AFTER Nagasaki.

As to blockading and fuck russia, yep right... and exactly how would that have been done, by us invading the USSR as Patton wanted?

My god, facts really get in the way, don't they?

By the way, under the nuclear targeting polices of the cold war I live ON A PRIMARY TARGET... and yes it is a large city... and you know what? It had at one time over ten warheads aimed at it, at every base and military installation in this city. (It probably still does)

That is the reality of total war.

And you have yet to answer in a realistic fashion how you would deal with the USSR. Fuck Russia does not work... by the by

For the record, they were also developing a nuke, and they were behind us by not that far, historians today are not that sure that the Rosenberg's had such a large effect on Joe's bomb, so perhaps we would have had a bomb dropped on either them or us three years later?

These are serious questions which you keep dodging. And i fear you will keep dodging.

You may not want to believe drooping them bombs was morally justifiably. This is a nice exercise on peace time morality and looking back in time... but here is a hard fact of life to accept and why war is or should be, the last resort... in war all them morality rules go out the window... and nation states do whatever they need to succeed in the conflict. This has been the case since salting the earth was a common practice for defeated nations (rome and Carthage come to mind) to the use of siege weapons and other horrors, to Sherman's march to the Sea.

Yep, it should horrify you, properly so... but make no mistake about it, war releases things in the human animal that are best left alone, and that is another lesson of history... when you develop weapons they will be used...

And given Operation Olympic's casualty numbers, yep ironically the use of these two weapons, you can call it whatever you want, saved lives... on all sides... which may very well be one of the few times when that has happened in history... and no this is not a justification but it is borne by history

You can call that whatever you want, but the historical record, including operations on Okinawa seem to support this view.

Was it right? Well, was it right for the German Air force to bomb London? How about I don't know Pearl Harbor? Wait, that was a valid military target, and by the same logic so were these two cities.

As I said, being horrified is the right and correct response, learnign from history is the next step

And becuase of those bombings today we are all properly horrified when some of our fearless chickenshit leaders even suggest even using a nuke.

That is the lesson that we all learned.

But the other lesson is to understand the contest and I fear you truly don't.

You may call that snarky, but that is the fact... you do not understand the context of why that happened.

(edited for clarity)

[Bonobo]

335. You accuse ME of ducking? Be honest now. Does THIS explain why a demo wouldn't work:

"And many of us have explained to you incessantly why the demonstration was rejected... you may call it racism, but history bears it out. In fact even AFTER the two nuclear bombings there was an attempted coup by a IJA Colonel, the night of the 14. He was not supported by General Anami Korechika, secretary of war who supported the continuation of the war. In the end he committed Sepuku, but there was an attempted coup even AFTER Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Emperor adressed his people for the first time on the 15, announcing the surrender."

THAT IS NO EXPLANATION! HOW IS THAT AN EXPLANATION OF WHY A DEMONSTRATION WASN'T CARRIED OUT. I KNOW; WE ONLY HAD 2 BOMBS SO WE HAD TO USE 'EM! RIGHT!

YOU SAY FACTS ARE STUBBORN. YOU ADD RHETORICAL FLOURISHES ("My God!") BUT YOUR WRITING NEVER THEMSELVES ADDRESS ANYTHING BUT OPINION.

"As to blockading and fuck russia, yep right... and exactly how would that have been done, by us invading the USSR as Patton wanted?"

Who said invade Russia? I said Russia had lost 20 million soliders in the war and were not gonna fight much anymore. Where are your FACTS to show this is untrue?

"For the record, they were also developing a nuke, and they were behind us by not that far, historians today are not that sure that the Rosenberg's had such a large effect on Joe's bomb, so perhaps we would have had a bomb dropped on either them or us three years later?"

RUSSIA HAS HAD THE BOMB FOR 50 YEARS AND THEY NEVER USED IT. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE LIKELY FOR THEM TO USE IT THEN? ESPECIALLY IF WE HAD A DEMO FOR THEM OF ITS POWER? I REPEAT: THEY NEVER USED IT IN 50 YEARS AND YOU ARE TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT IS A LIKELY SCENARIO. FACTS ARE INDEED STUBBORN THINGS!

"I also know the fact that the fire bombing of tokyo killed far more people still escapes you, nor did it lead to a softening in the attitudes of the War Council."

IT DOES NOT ESCAPE ME, IT UNDERSCORES THE FACT THAT WE WERE BRUTAL BASTARDS WHO SAW NO PROBLEM WITH INTENTIONALLY KILLING "JAPS" EN MASSE! YES! IT WAS UNPRECEDENTED! FACTS ARE STUBBORN!

YOU CANNOT HAVE AN ARGUMENT WITHOUT RESORTING TO CHILDISH COMMENTS! WHY? CAN'T HANDLE IT? YOU ARE CLEARLY USED TO BULLYING PEOPLE. I KNOW THAT IS THE MILITARY MINDSET! BUT YOU ARE NOT IN THE MILITARY. TRY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION.

NOW! STOP DUCKING MY QUESTION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE STUDIES ON COGNITIVE DISSONANCE? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS?

[rockymountaindem]

388. Ok, I'm going to jump back in and try to answer this, since you seem upset

The reason nadinbrzezinski brought up the firebombing of Tokyo has nothing to do with whether we thought it was ok to "kill Japs". The point is that the bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either of the A-bombs, and that did not convince the Japanese to surrender. The point here is that if the Tokyo bombing did not force a surrender, then a demonstration of the A-bomb's power was unlikely to do so. Furthermore, as nadinbrzezinski indicates, even after we had done two "demonstrations" of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were elements in the Japanese army which tried to prevent a surrender by taking the emperor hostage, and beyond that the vote in the war council was still a tie. If the two bombings themselves were only enough to cause a tie vote, we should't imagine that a demonstration would have worked to make Japan wave the white flag.

As for having only two bombs, that doesn't matter. If the US was of the mind to do a demonstration, we could have waited until we had more bombs. They were rolling out rather quickly and the invasion of Japan wasn't scheduled until November in any case. In the end, that does not matter. Japan had already suffered worse damage in single raids prior to the atomic bombs, and still they did not surrender. And, as I said, even after we had used the bomb not once, but twice, half of the war council wanted to continue the war.

On to your other points. Firstly, the fact that Russia had the bomb for fifty years and didn't use it is just hindsight. At the time it had no bearing on the decision to use our bombs or not. Secondly, you claim that the USSR would not have fought on at the end of WWII. This is not true. Firstly, on August 1, 1945, the USSR invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria. If they were too exhausted to go on, they would not have done that. Secondly, nobody can deny that the USSR was at the peak of its military strength at the *end* of the war, with a massive army that was flush with victory and well-equipped (in some instances, notably in armor, better equipped than the US Army).

I hope this clarifies what nadinbrzezinski was trying to say.

[rman]

348. Many wars have been fought and won without nuclear weapons

There's no particular reason why this one would have been any different.

[Bonobo]

349. Prepare to be called a revisionist who doesn't understand complexities.

I have been fighting these people for 3 days now.

None of them see a connection between their failure to condemn the of use of Atomic weapons and the potential future use of them. This concept is apparently to complex or I am to naive to understand.

But it seems to me, that if they can rationalize, post facto, that we used them in an acceptable way than that invites other nations (or indeed us again) to do the same.

Apparently this esoteric subject is to be reserved for those who "understand history" and have degrees to prove it. God help us from people who think they are smarter than everyone else. Or those who think the U.S. should be the sole arbiter of justice.

I give 'em trying to convince them, but you can be damn sure, if given the chance, I WILL fight them with every ounce of strength I have.

[Raskolnik]

363. I'm truly sorry, Bonobo.

I didn't want to make it sound that although you don't seem to have an actual grasp of the historical realities of WWII that your opinion was somehow less valid than those that do. Your conclusions, although not based on historical fact or reasoned argument, should not be dismissed out of hand, and I apologize if did just that.

I understand, and share, your moral revulsion at the use of atomic weapons. Where we part company is with your unwillingness to address the context of their use against Japan. I believe that although the use of atomic weapons was horrible, and nearly unforgivable, the realistic alternatives available to the U.S. in August of 1945 were even more horrible and even more unforgivable.

I do not feel the U.S. is or should be the sole arbiter of justice. We performed horrible acts during the course of WWII, not the least of which was using atomic weapons. In my opinion, some of those horrible acts were worth their cost (such as the use of the bombs to end the war swiftly) and some were not (the firebombing of Tokyo and other civilian centers).

Once again, I apologize if I was rude or dismissive of your feelings. I think we can both agree that there are no easy answers in this area, and any attempt to attach labels of "good" and "bad" is doomed from the onset.

[Bonobo]

365. Agreed....and most appreciated.

Feelings cannot be removed from the equation.

My children and wife and many treasure family and friends are Japanese and for me to accept that the A-Bomb was justified as impossible as asking a Jew to accept that the Holocaust or an Armenian to accept their tragedy. I could never do it and so must argue against it lest it happen again.

Thanks again.

[nadinbrzezinski]

371. Ah now we know why you have a problem detaching

yourself from the actual history.

For the record when I had to choose a specialty I did not choose Holocaust studies

You may guess why

That said... nobody is saying it was the moral thing to do...

Nor is any of us saying that we should be nuking Iran.

The lesson learned was quite simple... these weapons are so horrific that they should never be used again in anger. (Now as part of an interstellar drive, is a whole different matter, but learning why they were deoployed is also as critical... and understanding the history that led to it is critical. Just as we need to learn from the holocaust, and by the by... the pattern that led to it is reemerging, partly because we have NOT learned the lessons from THAT history,

[Bonobo]

375. War is what happens when you detach yourself from empathy.

It is impossible to justify the use of nuclear (atomic) weapons in the past without, at the same time, justifying the potential use of them sometime in the future.

THAT is why their use must be condemned, whether that be on the past or in the future. Any such justification MUST be met with resistance or we will be allowing the creation of conditions which will forgive their use by someone else or us.

[nadinbrzezinski]

379. I wish it were that simple

War happens for a multitude of reasons and lack of empathy is not even close to the top of the list... not even close... in fact from all the records I have read it never enters into the equation

By the way, by your logic I should also condemn the use of the Mini gun, the Galting Gun, the Balista and other implements of war. Perhaps I should go back to the first man who bashed somebody else's skull with a rock... damn he had no empathy for his opponent and that is why he bashed tha skull in...

The causes for WW II have precious little to do with empathy... as well as the causes for any other war in the history of humanity.

By the way, your logic is false.

You keep claimng that those of us WHO UNDERSTAND why the bombs were used are willing to use them again. Once again, HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO SPELL IT TO YOU, THAT IS NOT SO?

By the way, I have yet to see you adress the war crimes the Japanese commited between 1930 and 1945. Perhaps, as you said, you are unqualified to talk on the subject since your feelings are truly getting in the way. As I said, when I was 24 and had to choose specialty I tried to do holocaust studies. I found vey quickly that I could not do it... them damn feelings got in the way... so I changed my speciality. You are as unqualified to evaluate the hitory of the period, by your own admission, as I was to deal with the Holocaust as a profesional historian. Which is not at all.

I guess I could do it today... and perhaps I will... but I am honest with myself.

Oh and the Japanse were not lambs brougth to the slawghter... droping the bombs was not morally justifiable perpahs, but the whole war had no mrality. War ain't a moral exercise, and in fact profesional historians do not bring the term morality into the equation, since at that moment we bring our current standards to the equiation. By that logic we should condemnt the taking of Jerusalem for the wanton murder and rape of its population by the Crusaders. Morally they commited what would be considerd today war crimes... alas it is an event that happened and that to this day affects how east and west look at each other... but it is an event in history. In many ways the events of WW II, including the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the liberations fo the camps, have to be seen with some distane... and proper revulsion to learn from the events, but... they happened. Understanding WHY is critical and that is what you refuse to do.

Oh and our modern moralty can be used to justify the conquest of Tenochtitlan by the Spaniards in 1521, after all they stopped human sacrifice and historians calculate that over 20 million people died within the next hundred years from Western Diseases... and at one time it was justified by both the Church and the Spanish Government on those grounds.

Now the important question is, could humans ever again use nukes again?

Yes... if people forget what happenedn and empathy be damned, since it has NOTHING to do with empathy... but all to do with propper horror.

Could Japan become a threat to the world Community again? Yes, if conditions are right and we forget the lessons of history.

Is the US a current threat to the world communtiy? Yes


Oh and before you say it. I once asked you if you are going to put your body on the line for your believes. I have, as a Medic, and gotten shot at... so shove your charges of lack of empathy where the sun don't shine.

Perhaps what you should take out of this is that you are truly incapable of judging WHY things happened... and wish thngs were different... understandable... after all the Hitler travel plan cost my dad fifty + of his relatives at a place called Treblynka. Yet the right here and now has two realities

1.- The Japanese for the msot part are still rather racist against outsiders, I did not make that up... it is a well understood fact. Not that we are not racist, we are... before yuo even bring that out... we are plenty racist, but SO ARE THE JAPANESE... perhaps, if you truly want to look for the origin of war, you could start there... as well as resources, but empathy is not part of it.

2.- The Japanese do not teach their kids fully why things happened in WW II, and if you are even a product of that system you are showing why they see themselves at times as innocent vicitims. They were as much a victim as many other populations were.

Oh and one last thing... the Russiand lost 20 million people, yet, if they saw a chance to take Japan in '45 they would have... and your statemetn that the Soviets be damned again show a poor understanding, in this case, of Russian History or the history of WW II.

[Bonobo]

384. This thread is about what WE did. Tough to grasp that?

Your question about Nanking is irrelevant UNLESS you are justifying the A-Bombs BASED on that. So I will not address it here.

If you wish to start another post on that subject, you are welcome to do so.

[nadinbrzezinski]

391. You may want to ask yourself this

Why did the US Military, and the US President feel it was necessary?

You may start by readying Olympic (the plan for the invasion of Japan and the expectd casualties, no it is not a freebie used to justify a horrible fact, anybody even distantly familiar with the history of the Great Pacific War (I used the Japanese denomination for it) knows how horrible the fighting was, and KNOWS that Japanese civlilioans jumped to their deaths to avoid living under the Gaijin Americans, and that some did charge US Troops with bamboo lances. That is a fact, and one that you have yet to adress.

read about the casualties caused by conventional fire bombing and how the War Council was still willing to fight, history is a tought son a gun I now.

Read about the situation on the ground... even AFTER the two bombs and the fact the Emperor had to get involved and break a tie in the War Council, even AFTER two nulcear weapons. His reason, he could not bring himself to bring more suffering to his people. (And read about the ATTEMPTED coup on the night of the 14th, I know facts still seem to escape you) Read about the order to stop the nuclear bombing from Trumman, who told the military hold your horses we are in the middle of negotiations. (Yes a third bomb would have been ready for delivery by the 18th) There are some that suspect that this decision is what kept Hirohito on the throne by the way. And the decision from Trumman also involved a certain ammount of guilt, strangely about all those kids... never mind he did sign plenty of execute orders for conventional fire bombings.

They fell it was the least of a series of horrible choices, and whether strategically we had to do it or not has been hotly debated ever since. And there are two schools among SERIOUS historians, the larger school that believes strategically it had to be done and it did ssve lives, and a smaller school that beleives it was a mistake.

Was it right? You are asking for a value judgement and you will not get one... why? There is no morality in war, truly no morality in war. Once you are able to accept this little horrible fact, you realize just how horrific war truly is...

Was it the right decision given the situation on the ground? We can debate this until the cows come home, the fact it, they were used... and the lesson from their use is that nukes are too horrible of a weapom of war and chiefly are good DETERRENTS. (And good engine parts for an interstellar vessel, if as a species we decide to do that... going from here to Alpha Centauri will consume about half the total nuclear arsenal, which means we will need to build more... if we intend to build more than two one way ships)

As to Nanking, it was one of the causes of the war, since that is what directly led to the oil embargo that placed the two nations in an innevitable course to war. And yes, some will argue that what the Japanese did starting at Nanking were war crimes... in fact that was the stance of the IMT (International Military Tribunal for Tokyo). Some, chiefly in Japan and among the nationalist (just as in Germany) have argued that the war trials were victor's justice, and though there is a chessnut of truth in there since all combatants in the war engaged in what was codified as war crimes even before the war started, only the loosers faced the music. (I am refering chiefly to the use of Submarine unrestricted warfare and purposely targetting civilians, which every did)

The other fact still remains nobody has used a nuke ever since... and by god I hope nobody does again (in anger)

[Bonobo]

378. I know you are Jewish, like me.

That is why it is doubly shocking to hear such insensitivity,

Have some shame. Also, I was thanking the poster of this reply and you didn't need to barge in and say such an intentionally nasty thing.

Maybe you've had a hard life, maybe you feel justified in being so nasty, I don't know.

But you seem to have some difficulty with empathy and getting your heart and the brain to work in conjunction with each other and for that, I feel sorry for you. And I underscore the word "sorry".

[nadinbrzezinski]

381. Ok kid time to bring the big guns out

your charges of lack of empathy are just ammusing at this point... is that all you have left?

1.- I worked as a Medic where EMPATHY is your middle name

2.- I worked with refugee populatiions from that nice war in Central America where Empathy is your middle name

I probably heard first hand more horror stories in a year than you have heard in a life time.

What have you done?

You keep comfusing knoweldge and understanding of the hsitorical record with lack of empathy.

It ain't my fault that you are incapable of undersanding this.

Perhaps, as you said, your feelings are gettting in the way, and you are truly incapable of looking at history in a dispassionate manner

That is what profesional historians do.

[Bonobo]

385. Your own words show more than your resume does.

Take responsibility for your words on this thread. Your lack of empathy with regards to this issue is clear.

You jump ceaselessly on a thread showing victims and you keep screaming that we had no choice. What else can I conclude?

Perhaps it is you who have issues related to WW2 and Japan's role in it due to having lost relatives in Treblynka.

I care not one whit that you were a medic who was shot at.

What have I done? I try to create a good world around me and I try to teach those I know that war is unforgivable.

I do not hide behind bullshit academic rationalizations that the A-Bomb was necessary.

Why don't you make your "historic" arguments on the other thread if you are so confident in your historical knowledge. That poster seems to know some things.

No, I admit my opinion is based on emotions. Unlike you who try to pretend that emotions play no part. What is a historian? Do you pretend that it is a hard science like Chemistry?

History is the tool of governments, like religion. It is USED to JUSTIFY past actions as much as it is used to UNDERSTAND them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

390. As a professional historian there is no place for empathy

is that clear enough for you?

Are you still not getting it?

What is more, are you not getting it that UNDERSTANDING why things happens does ot mean JUSTIFYING THEM?

That is the problem in your mind.

Those who understand the past will learn from it, but it seems in your crazy logic, understanding equals somehow moral justification... unfortunately there is no room for clear outrage in historical analysis, or historians would be outraged by all kinds of things. You have to try to learn, not apply my present values to events in the past. Again another little chestnut you seem incapable of comprehending.

Historians do ask, was it a mistake? Yes absolutely... and people have been debating this as a stratigic event since 1945... but at no time pros bring into this discusion empathy, but they do bring in the geopolitical realities on the grond.

And some historians believe it was a mistake...

But no historian that is worth his or her salt will ask this from a what if, unless your name is Harry Turtledove or SM Sterling and you are working on another alternate history book.... that is where you can do the what if scenarios, and they are done, but not as a historical exercise but a fiction one. And you have been incaplable of doing it from a fiction perspective either... becuase you lack understanding of the realities on the ground.

By your poor use of logic I guess then I will also stand aside when another holocaust happens. Yeah, right, I did learn the lesson of that one and have been fighting tooth and nail against people who would willingly practice another one this time against Arabs... but by your own logic I should be on the side lines applauding it. Or I should be applauding the suggestion of Cheney and Bush to use nukes... WRONG again.



See, that is the problem with your logic... and it is a hole that we cannot solve or communicate though.

Is there empathy for the victims? Yes, but there is also empathy for the victim of any other war, including more pressingly currently ongoing ones.


In your view those who understand events and WHY They happen lack empathy and would stand on the side and allow them to happen once again. YOur problem buddy, and it is lack of readying comprehension on your part.

By the way why have I spent all this time arguing, uselessly, against you. or with you? Quite simple, I hate it when people spread lies and misinformation, and you have been trying to do that.

Now if you came at us and said, the bombing was a mistake and gave valid reaosns... there might be a room to discuss the issue... in fact there would have been, but the US had other choices... and then be unable to reason though them is quite funny, given that Japanese OFficers were not willing to surrender as late as the night of the 14th, but facts don't matter to you... not at all. Just two things matter to you

The US Dropped bombs therefore the US is evil.
Those who understand why it was done in a crazy fashion are justyfing this and will stand to the side when we nuke Iran. Wrong but hey, whatever trips your trigger.

As I have told you, the race was on in the 1940s, between all combatants to develop a nuke, and whoever came first was going to use it no matter what. It could have been the Russians, the Germans or the Japanese for the matter. And the only reason why it has not been used since... are those photos, and the OPEN WAY the US treated the event. The opening line of the OP seemed to indicate that the US hid all this information from the public, well that is the first bullshit statement, the photos and the information have been avaiable as early as possible/... some of them even printed in papesr of the time.

But the reasons you haw given include racism, it wasn't so, the bomb wasn't ready by VE day, and of coarse lack of empathy from Americans, which is somehow a reason for wars, which is the funniest bullshit reason for wars, traditionally over resources, I have ever read.

My favorite chess-nut was, well it was the military industrial complex and war profiteers, to judge events from your current point of view will lead to way too many problems.

As I told, you are incapable of having this discussion with the impassioned regard a historian needs... and that is clear from the git go, and where your fallacious thinking comes from.

Once again let me repeat this for you... understanding why events happen does not mean you necessarily will stand on the side and let them happen again... is that clear enough, or do you need me to spell it out for you?

And wiht that have a good life.

[nadinbrzezinski]

367. And many wars were also fought without gun powder

historical and technological development lead to new weapons all the time

[rman]

389. You're saying we must use nukes because we have them?

[nadinbrzezinski]

392. Yep we did use them because we had them

every weapon of war is used by whoever develops it first since every weapon is seen as a new advantage in the battlefield.

That is a historical fact

And if the OTHER combatants developed it first, they would have used it first.

Yes, there was a race for it, in case you did not know this.

[Thothmes]

355. Just a thought

The visions of Nagasaki and Hiroshima after the bombings are truly disturbing. I know of no descriptive adjectives in the English language to truly express the horror of those events. Whether the use of the atomic bomb was justifiable or not has been hashed out in this forum many times. I suspect that these discussions will continue every early August. Ultimate defeat of Japan aside, if those two bombs had not been dropped what would have educated the entire world as to the massive destructive power of those weapons. What would have prevented the use of the Atomic bomb to stop the PLA from crossing the Yalu River. If Hanoi went up in a mushroom shaped cloud, would that not have been faster and easier way to end the problem in South Viet Nam. A nuke strike on Washington DC or Moscow may have been the easy and quick solution to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The only way anyone actually knew of the real destructive power of the Atomic bombs was as a result of the use of those weapons on the Japanese. Having seen what happened to Hiroshima & Nagasaki, the world political powers have not resorted to using a nuclear weapon on their foes. Bombs, poison gas, napalm, yes, but never a nuke. Would this have been the case, if we had not seen two Japanese cities disappear in nano-seconds?

[Jcrowley]

358. Crimes against humanity

There is no rationale for this. It takes layers of obfuscation to come to such a position that there could be.

[Raskolnik]

364. Ok, since it takes "layers of obfuscation" to provide a rationale

You should be able to articulate your preferred alternative fairly easily.

What alternative available to the U.S. in 1945 would have resulted in less casualties in the long term?

[Retired AF Dem]

401. Boo hoo

I guess you don't give a shit about the millions of Chinese the Japanese killed. Hell after the ineffective Doolittle raid the Japanese killed the same amount of Chinese in retribution for allowing the surviving bombers landing in China. I'm so tired of hearing of Japan being a victim.

[Dover]

403. Jcrowley - take a little break from all the guts and gore stuff...

take a long walk, breathe, smell the flowers, etc....