Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[bush_cheney2004]

My fave is Ivy Mike...love the countdown and dramatic music overdub here

[DogOnPorch]

Aye Mike was the first true H-Bomb...or more like H-House. That was huge in size. No plane/missile could have carried such a thing with its cryogenics and such. Things quickly got a lot smaller.

[ToadBrother]

Strawman 1 - "So we get Germany and Japan as victims" - Nobody has said Japan was a "victim", people have argued that civilians destroyed by the atomic bomb were.

This always puzzles me. You seem to have no problems with mass starvation and massive conventional bombing campaigns (as happened in Germany in the dying days of the War in Europe, when the Yanks, Brits and Soviets closed in on the Fatherland), but somehow the notion of "atomic" has you freaking out. I think I've figured out your problem, you think nuclear weapons are magical and inherently evil weapons, while naval blockades and air bombing campaigns and mass invasion forces are A-okay.

It's a pity in my mind that the Yanks hadn't had bombs ready several months earlier, in time to detonate a couple over major German targets and stop the Red Army in its tracks. Instead Eastern Europe got to spend half a century under the thumb of the Soviets. I wonder if a couple of hundred thousand lives would have been worth the kind of liberty and economic success the Japanese enjoyed during that same period.

At any rate, anyone who thinks that Truman didn't think long and hard about the decision, anyone who thinks he was just some wanton evil murderous mad man is, charitably, naive. I can see the point for disagreeing with his decision (though in his boots I would have done the same thing), but what I can't see is how you and your fellow revisionists basically turn the United States into the bad guy, when the United States only act, in the beginning, was to stop selling oil to the Japs.

[dre]

This always puzzles me. You seem to have no problems with mass starvation and massive conventional bombing campaigns (as happened in Germany in the dying days of the War in Europe, when the Yanks, Brits and Soviets closed in on the Fatherland), but somehow the notion of "atomic" has you freaking out. I think I've figured out your problem, you think nuclear weapons are magical and inherently evil weapons, while naval blockades and air bombing campaigns and mass invasion forces are A-okay.

It's a pity in my mind that the Yanks hadn't had bombs ready several months earlier, in time to detonate a couple over major German targets and stop the Red Army in its tracks. Instead Eastern Europe got to spend half a century under the thumb of the Soviets. I wonder if a couple of hundred thousand lives would have been worth the kind of liberty and economic success the Japanese enjoyed during that same period.

At any rate, anyone who thinks that Truman didn't think long and hard about the decision, anyone who thinks he was just some wanton evil murderous mad man is, charitably, naive. I can see the point for disagreeing with his decision (though in his boots I would have done the same thing), but what I can't see is how you and your fellow revisionists basically turn the United States into the bad guy, when the United States only act, in the beginning, was to stop selling oil to the Japs.

You seem to have no problems with mass starvation and massive conventional bombing campaigns (as happened in Germany in the dying days of the War in Europe, when the Yanks, Brits and Soviets closed in on the Fatherland)

Forget it man, you havent read a single thing I said. I didnt advocate mass starvation anywhere. Not in this thread, not in any other thread. Any conventional bombing campaigns I supported would be against military targets...

but somehow the notion of "atomic" has you freaking out

No, its the notion of targeting civilians that freaked me out. If you had read a single one of my posts youd know that I actually advocated using nuclear weapons. But you didnt. You speed read, get it wrong, then unleash a barrage of moronic childish insults. End of story.

I think I've figured out your problem, you think nuclear weapons are magical and inherently evil weapons, while naval blockades and air bombing campaigns and mass invasion forces are A-okay.

Not a big fan of reading posts before you reply to them eh Randy?

[dre]

This sums it up perfectly so Ill post it again.

The reality here is that Cory, Trevor, Randy and other advocates of attacking civilians during war time are trying to put forth the proposition that the only way someone could take the position that surrender could have been achieved without nuking urban areas is if they dont know their history.

They seem to claim that this is a settled issue, and that theres a consensus that there was no other way.

But thats just simply not true. There IS no consensus... not among historians, not among politicians, not among the military including Generals that actually participated in the war.

When they are shown quotes proving that indeed many of the players directly involved in the conflict made the exact same argument that I have made here... They completely ignore them. When they are asked why it wasnt made clear in Potsdam that surrender would not mean that the japenese would lose their emperor they completely refuse to answer. When you suggest that since there was more bombs available than just the two that got dropped, why it wouldnt have been worth trying to achieve surrender by dropping on them on areas less densely populated with civilians, they make some non-sesical comment about selling used cars.

When I take the same position against targetting civilians in war as the Chief Of Staff to both Roosevelt and Truman...

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

...These geniuses post a one line reply comparing me to a moralistic southpark character.

When I point out that people like Hoover made statements like this...

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

... and even point out where negotiationing tactics should have been used but werent. No reply at all.

When I point out GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR's statement...

Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary

They indirectly suggest that one most prominent generals in the war got his history from a cerial box

Their assertion? Armchair message board chickhawks like Cory, Trevor, and Randy know more 60 years later from the comfort of their computer chairs than Eisenhower, General Macarthur, Admiral Leahy, and Herbert Hoover.

And back to William Leahy's statement...

I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

If you polled Generals in the US military today, you would get unanimous agreement.

But again! Cory, and Trevor, and Randy know different! And the rest of the world are idiots that dont know their history.

[bush_cheney2004]

If you polled Generals in the US military today, you would get unanimous agreement.

But again! Cory, and Trevor, and Randy know different! And the rest of the world are idiots that dont know their history.

Poor chap is reduced to just running in circles...and has never met a US General...or likely any flag officer to poll for that matter. Must be all those Hollywood movies.

[jbg]

I don't understand why Truman bombed 2 urban civilian targets with the only 2 bombs he ordered dropped. Other options may have taken an extra bomb and a few more days to force surrender, but probably would be more ethically excusable.

Yeah, brilliant idea.

Have Japan in even a brief state of chaos and watch how fast "Uncle Joe" would have been there. It had to be finished, and immediately.

[jbg]

Thank God for civilized Americans who honour their citizen soldiers.

Europeans are a violent, uncivilized people. In a single century, they methodically killed millions in Polish death camps or slaughtered millions in battles near Belgian towns.

Based on history - America is civilized peace; Europe is uncivilized war.

-----

Thank you for your kind words.

I simply do not understand Leftists who view Europe as progressive. I don't.

It isn't. It's mercantalist with a modern label; socialist.

[jbg]

As well, it should be pointed out that the Occcupation of Japan was one of the most benevolent if not the most benevolent in history.

I thought that honor goes to Pakistan's occupation of the current Bangladesh or the German occupation of the Jewish Pale of Settlement.

[jbg]

The reality here is that Cory, Trevor, Randy and other advocates of attacking civilians during war time are trying to put forth the proposition that the only way someone could take the position that surrender could have been achieved without nuking urban areas is if they dont know their history.

They seem to claim that this is a settled issue, and that theres a consensus that there was no other way.****************

I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

If you polled Generals in the US military today, you would get unanimous agreement.

But again! Cory, and Trevor, and Randy know different! And the rest of the world are idiots that dont know their history.

War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, peole demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to foresake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theatres on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

Originally posted here (link)

Edited to add omitted link.

Edited August 12, 2010 by jbg

[dre]

War is hell. There is no doubt about that. Children who just yesterday seemed to be playing in the tire swing on the front yard are off to fight, often in some distant land or venue. Everyone of any degree of sanity wishes that this were never needed, and that our beloved flesh and blood could go peacefully from playful childhood to productive, fruitful adulthood to wise old age.

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, peole demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to foresake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theatres on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. How many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, Iwo Jima and various African sites far removed from the main Axis powers?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

Originally posted here (link)

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately

Thats basically the same thing Iv been saying. I have no problem with the US going after Japan aggresively, and there was going to be a lot of civilian deaths no matter what. Thats just reality.

What Id rather not see in war is the deliberate targeting, because once all sides start doing that the numbers really go through the roof.

The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

I have no doubt that they accomplished that. I still dont like though, because in all those cases the war was basically won, and civilians were subjected to a sort of collective punishment.

In any case, decent post. Its nice to have someone in this thread with a higher IQ than 90, thats capable of stringing a few sentences together

[jbg]

This is a great example of what I have described earlier...yours is the mind of an impulsive adolescent, regardless of your real age. Several other members (you know who you are) resort to this as well when trounced.

That is totally unwarranted. I've "spoken" to him on MSN and he's quite mature and intelligent. Even though we disagree on everything he makes good and novel points (for example about water being a driving force in Israel's conflict with Syria).

At least he speaks to me while you surely won't lower yourself to. Who is the adolescent?

[jbg]

In any case, decent post. Its nice to have someone in this thread with a higher IQ than 90, thats capable of stringing a few sentences together

Thanks for your kind words, even though Carolyn Parrish tested my IQ and found I was a member of the "idiot coalition" she would not join. So my IQ must be less than 50, though I test at 79, or just above "moron" level.

[bush_cheney2004]

That is totally unwarranted. I've "spoken" to him on MSN and he's quite mature and intelligent. Even though we disagree on everything he makes good and novel points (for example about water being a driving force in Israel's conflict with Syria).

No he is not...only the mind of an adolescent retreats to the base insults he cherishes most. Go back and read his "intelligent" discourse.

At least he speaks to me while you surely won't lower yourself to. Who is the adolescent?

I am "speaking" to you right now. That is what this forum is for. Badgering me for more "personal time" in your own private chat is your issue, not mine. I am not your pen pal.

[bush_cheney2004]

....What Id rather not see in war is the deliberate targeting, because once all sides start doing that the numbers really go through the roof.

Sorry, way too late for that, as American nuclear strike and counterstrike frameworks (SIOP - SWPS) includes the purposeful targeting of civilian population centers as the means to destroy a potential enemy's economic viability. This is in addition to military targets, defense suppression, power generation, transportation, etc.

There is much that you would not like to see, but it very much exists. That is the reality of war.

Edited August 12, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Jack Weber]

Horishima and Nagasaki were probably necessary if someone looks at what the world powers would look like after World War 2...

The firebombing of Dresden was almost totally about vengeance...

[DogOnPorch]

JW: The firebombing of Dresden was almost totally about vengeance...

Nah...more about Bomber Harris's ego. He wanted to end WW2. Not those other guys. Meanwhile, Monty and Patton have a dust-up in the parking lot. Over the way, Zhukov is picking-up the tab.

[DogOnPorch]

Sorry, way too late for that, as American nuclear strike and counterstrike frameworks (SIOP - SWPS) includes the purposeful targeting of civilian population centers as the means to destroy a potential enemy's economic viability. This is in addition to military targets, defense suppression, power generation, transportation, etc.

There is much that you would not like to see, but it very much exists. That is the reality of war.

During the Cold War, I remember looking at one map that showed Soviet nuclear targets in British Columbia. I was suprised to find my little city spared from a direct attack. However, the hydro-electric dams around the place were to be subject to several H-Bombs each.

This made a big impact on me...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023790698427111488#

as did this...

[bloodyminded]

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted.

This is sheer, jingoistic nonsense.

[ToadBrother]

Sorry, way too late for that, as American nuclear strike and counterstrike frameworks (SIOP - SWPS) includes the purposeful targeting of civilian population centers as the means to destroy a potential enemy's economic viability. This is in addition to military targets, defense suppression, power generation, transportation, etc.

There is much that you would not like to see, but it very much exists. That is the reality of war.

Let's all try to remember that we stopped living in an era of discreet warfare about the time of the Thirty Years War, the first of what I would consider "total wars", where civilian populations were targets. After that it was all downhill. The American Civil War saw the reinvention of scorched earth policies, attacks straight at the lifeblood of the Confederacy. The Brits invented the modern concentration camp, again targeting non-combatants. Of course WWI was the birth of Total War in every way. Armies didn't fight wars, nation states fought wars. Every aspect of the state; political, governmental, social and economic was now brought to bear. A factory building munitions was now a target, even if it was women working inside.

This, to me, is why peace is so important. Not because of some sort of self-righteous feel-goodism the likes of Dre seem to invoke, but because the idea that non-combatants won't get blown to bits when it comes down to the crunch is hopelessly naive. If modern nation states, even without nuclear capabilities, go to war, it isn't on some discrete battlefield, it's everywhere. Nuclear weapons are only the latest and most powerful innovation, but it all started during the Thirty Years War when mercenaries for all sides began ignoring the niceties of Medieval combat. And there's no turning back. A cannonball will just as happily drink a baby's blood as it will a soldier's. And if that cannonball, even in drinking a baby's blood, could put an end to a war that could cost millions more lives, then, even if I were a praying man, I'd ask whatever gods I believed in to forgive me, and fire the cannon. That's the calculus of total war. When push comes to shove, morals take second place to victory.

Edited August 12, 2010 by ToadBrother

[jbg]

I am "speaking" to you right now. That is what this forum is for. Badgering me for more "personal time" in your own private chat is your issue, not mine. I am not your pen pal.

I have never abused the private messaging forum. I use it to communicate sharper thoughts than I want to post with people whom I basically agree with. I don't like to take quibbles to the "airwaves". Blocking non-abusive posters is immature and adolescent.

[jbg]

Unfortunately, the way of the world is that nations and religious groups frequently do not like each other. There is always some group that doesn't want to engage in diplomacy or good-faith negotiation. It is the people that enjoy the cherished freedom relished by Americans and Canadians that do not wish to fight. Sometimes other people or groups make unreasonable demands that must be resisted. For example, in the U.S. south, peole demanded the right to keep other people enslaved, and were willing to foresake Congressional and electoral debate to that end. In more modern times, various groups, at different times calling themselves fascists, communists, or Islamists, believed that they had the right to limit the freedom of others, in behalf of some deranged or impractical dream of world paradise, on their terms, with them as rulers.

This is sheer, jingoistic nonsense.

Tell me what "good-faith negotiations" the following have engaged in:

1. Nazis (Czechoslovakia and breach of Molotov-Ribbentrop);
   
2. Hamas
   
3. Saddam Husseein v. Kuwait
   
4. Hitler with Jewish population
   
5. Hutus and Tutsis
   
6. Janjaweed and rival Christian and Muslim Sudanese.
   

Need more examples?

Edited August 12, 2010 by jbg

[bush_cheney2004]

During the Cold War, I remember looking at one map that showed Soviet nuclear targets in British Columbia. I was suprised to find my little city spared from a direct attack. However, the hydro-electric dams around the place were to be subject to several H-Bombs each.

Three comments about Threads:

1) Was that a Ford Cortina make out car? We had one of these (left-hand drive) back in the 70's! Had a very unreliable Lucas electrical system.

2) Not so subtle dig at Argentina (beef)....film must have been made close to Faulklands War. HMS Sheffield (D80) was sunk by an Argentine launched Exocet.

3) The title Threads reminded me of Connections....which demonstrates the relationship of discovery that made "modern" warfare possible.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have never abused the private messaging forum. I use it to communicate sharper thoughts than I want to post with people whom I basically agree with. I don't like to take quibbles to the "airwaves". Blocking non-abusive posters is immature and adolescent.

Look, it's not about you at all...I "block" all private messaging functions from any forum I participate in. I puposely wish to "quibble" on the "airwaves" with vigor, for those I agree or disagree with. As your tiff demonstrates, never assume 100% alignment on any issue.

I have made no demands on your time or space....please afford me the same courtesy.

[bloodyminded]

Tell me what "good-faith negotiations" the following have engaged in:

1. Nazis (Czechoslovakia and breach of Molotov-Ribbentrop);
   
2. Hamas
   
3. Saddam Husseein v. Kuwait
   
4. Hitler with Jewish population
   
5. Hutus and Tutsis
   
6. Janjaweed and rival Christian and Muslim Sudanese.
   

Need more examples?

Where in the hell did I ever suggest that these folks engaged in "good-faith negotiations"?

From where are you dredging up these notions?