Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[DogOnPorch]

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.

I think you're right. About a '72 or so.

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.

Yes...1984.

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

Agreement. Also from the same period. In this case it is how quickly things fall apart when the basics are no longer there. She survives.

[jbg]

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

From where are you dredging up these notions?

You called my statements on the need to use force "sheer jingoistic nonensense".

[Wilber]

I think that what today's moralizers disregard is the number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent the final acts that ended a six year long global struggle that had already taken 200 times as many lives. It was also an act taken against one of the countries that was responsible for the majority of those deaths. Fewer were killed in those two raids than civilians murdered by the Japanese during the rape of Nanking. An estimated 11 million Chinese civilians died during that period and 20 million Soviet citizens. Poland lost 10% of its population. None of us who didn't live it can hope to comprehend what that means. Cheap at twice the price I am sure if you were there.

[Alta4ever]

I tend to go with three explanations.

1. As the invasion of Okinawa demonstrated, even when all reasonable hope of military success, the Japanese soldiers, and even civilians fought hard. To the Allied planners this was a clear signal that an invasion of the Japanese main islands would be an enormously bloody affair.

2. Stalin was pushing hard to gain the same sort of Russian involvement in post-war Japan that it had gained in East and Central Europe. The other Allies felt it absolutely necessary to end the War in the Pacific before the Russians could make good on their declaration of war of Japan.

3. This is intertwined with point 2, but even before Victory in Europe, the Brits and Americans knew that some sort of major conflict with the USSR was inevitable once the Axis had been dealt with. As harsh as it sounds, Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent a clear message to the Soviets that any attempt on their part to utilize the stunningly massive number of Soviet troops in Europe would be met with terrifying force. Maybe it's overstated, but in my opinion the bombing of those two cities prevented WWIII.

In the balance of things, there were in fact worse options than the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yes, lots of civilians died, but it's almost certain that an invasion of the main islands would have lead to far higher casualties. What's more, preventing the USSR from seizing more of Japan than it already ultimately did (the Kuril Islands for instance) ultimately delivered a united Japan which became a staunch Western ally. One can envision the terrors of the heavily industrialized Japan split down the middle like the Koreas.

100% in agreement with you, you missed one other fact as well the fire bombing of Tokyo and other major Japanese centres actually created higher civilian death tolls then the two atomic attacks, and yet this did not dissuade the Japanese military leaders from continuing the war. It took the shock of having a city vapourized not by 100's of aircraft carrying 1000's of bombs but the unimaginable power of one bomb destroying one city in a second.

[Oleg Bach]

It always irks me when they talk about "children" being harmed - we are all children and we were all some mothers son and baby daughter...Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not save lives - It was an experiment.

[Wilber]

It always irks me when they talk about "children" being harmed - we are all children and we were all some mothers son and baby daughter...Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not save lives - It was an experiment.

In part it was an experiment. It had never been done before and no one knew exactly what would happen. Regardless, it saved lives, both Japanese and Allied. Japan was run by the army and there is ample evidence they would have fought to the last Japanese if they could have. The bombs took away any possibility that they could somehow avoid defeat or dictate surrender terms. In spite of that it took the unprecedented action of the Emperor bypassing the military and speaking directly to the people in order to call a halt to the festivities. They had never heard his voice until that day.

We who know nothing sit here pontificating on the actions of people who lived through the most destructive war in history, many of whom also lived through WW1. Having known many vets of every war from WW1 to Vietnam, there is only one thing I know for sure. No matter how hard I try, I can never know what it is really like. It's just not possible.

Those who judge the actions of previous generations by present standards are idiots who will be judged on their actions by future idiots according to future standards.

[jbg]

We who know nothing sit here pontificating on the actions of people who lived through the most destructive war in history, many of whom also lived through WW1. Having known many vets of every war from WW1 to Vietnam, there is only one thing I know for sure. No matter how hard I try, I can never know what it is really like. It's just not possible.

Those who judge the actions of previous generations by present standards are idiots who will be judged on their actions by future idiots according to future standards.

I agree but I think you mistake the motives of some of the opponents. The "left" somewhat deliberately whiffed up hysteria over nuclear weapons fully understanding that the U.S. and Western countries were the ones most likely to be forced to use them by other more aggressive countries. Remember, even though the purpose of the nukes was to occupy Japan after Japan had attacked, it was well known that the U.S.S.R. was seeking to expand its influence. Thus the likely use of nukes was to tame their ambitions.

This is not what the left wanted.

[Wilber]

I agree but I think you mistake the motives of some of the opponents. The "left" somewhat deliberately whiffed up hysteria over nuclear weapons fully understanding that the U.S. and Western countries were the ones most likely to be forced to use them by other more aggressive countries. Remember, even though the purpose of the nukes was to occupy Japan after Japan had attacked, it was well known that the U.S.S.R. was seeking to expand its influence. Thus the likely use of nukes was to tame their ambitions.

This is not what the left wanted.

Perhaps not so much a left right thing. Maybe just a couple of the most privileged generations in history which cannot grasp what it would be like to be involved in such a conflict or deal with the unfortunate reality that occasionally there are circumstances when killing can actually save lives in the long run. Not really surprising.

[jbg]

Perhaps not so much a left right thing. Maybe just a couple of the most privileged generations in history which cannot grasp what it would be like to be involved in such a conflict or deal with the unfortunate reality that occasionally there are circumstances when killing can actually save lives in the long run. Not really surprising.

I think it's more that the gore of war is brought right into the living room and computer screen now where as during WW II it wasn't. Also, now, the bodies are brought home for burial. Then they weren't. The U.N. didn't exist to give the false hopes that everything was negotiable.

[ToadBrother]

Perhaps not so much a left right thing. Maybe just a couple of the most privileged generations in history which cannot grasp what it would be like to be involved in such a conflict or deal with the unfortunate reality that occasionally there are circumstances when killing can actually save lives in the long run. Not really surprising.

Precisely my point all along. There is such a thing as the big picture, that harsh reality that those in positions of power must face, or at points face oblivion instead. Surely the the periods leading up to WWI and WWII were as ample a demonstration of how ignoring or trying to paper over serious issues inevitably lead to disaster. I hear the echoes in the pacifists decrying the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of similar pacifist sentiments that stopped the Allies from moving troops into Rhineland and forcing a still militarily weak Germany from backing down from its obvious ambitions. Pacifism can sometimes be the most deadly decision, staying the hand that bears the sword when the sword's quick application can save so many more lives.

Edited August 16, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

Precisely my point all along. There is such a thing as the big picture, that harsh reality that those in positions of power must face, or at points face oblivion instead. Surely the the periods leading up to WWI and WWII were as ample a demonstration of how ignoring or trying to paper over serious issues inevitably lead to disaster. I hear the echoes in the pacifists decrying the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki of similar pacifist sentiments that stopped the Allies from moving troops into Rhineland and forcing a still militarily weak Germany from backing down from its obvious ambitions. Pacifism can sometimes be the most deadly decision, staying the hand that bears the sword when the sword's quick application can save so many more lives.

Indeed, the policy of appeasement, which the West is now engaging in once again, is the path to ruin.

[eyeball]

Those who judge the actions of previous generations by present standards are idiots who will be judged on their actions by future idiots according to future standards.

Responsibility for the really important events that lead up to the violence of the 20th century can be laid at the feet of those in positions of power. The standards by which they operated in the past, an avoidance of any transparency or accountability whatsoever and secrecy with an intent to deceive (aka corruption), remains the same to this day if much of the violence and geopolitical dysfunction going into 21st century is anything to judge by.

There is such a thing as the big picture, that harsh reality that those in positions of power must face, or at points face oblivion instead.

This sort of sycophantic appeasement is no better than the idiocy that we should leave the big picture to God King and Country and just blindly die for the cause. The future isn't going to learn anything from us, not if we can help it by God et al.

Edited August 16, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

This sort of sycophantic appeasement is no better than the idiocy that we should leave the big picture to God King and Country and just blindly die for the cause. The future isn't going to learn anything from us, not if we can help it by God et al.

Can you show where the example I posed is wrong?

The appeasement I see here is to your own dislike of reality, and wish that somehow it would conform to your own particular fantasies. In the world I live in, war must always be an option, and never pre-emptively removed from the table to appease past enemies or, just as importantly, the electorates of our own countries.

If the Allies had marched into the Rhineland in 1935 after Hitler's rearmament, the German army was still far too small to hope to win. It would have been sent packing, it's quite likely that Hitler's popularity would have slumped. Yes, there would have been some casualties, maybe even civilian ones, but can you imagine the lives that would have been saved?

But go on, invent your own weird narratives where the application of power, save by your own narrow constraints, is bad. At least you've removed yourself from the process, becoming one of the legion of witless verbiage-spewing malcontents.

[eyeball]

Can you show where the example I posed is wrong?

The appeasement I see here is to your own dislike of reality, and wish that somehow it would conform to your own particular fantasies. In the world I live in, war must always be an option, and never pre-emptively removed from the table to appease past enemies or, just as importantly, the electorates of our own countries.

You just provided the example by declaring your preference to keep the option to declare wars out of the hands of the electorate.

If the Allies had marched into the Rhineland in 1935 after Hitler's rearmament, the German army was still far too small to hope to win. It would have been sent packing, it's quite likely that Hitler's popularity would have slumped. Yes, there would have been some casualties, maybe even civilian ones, but can you imagine the lives that would have been saved?

But go on, invent your own weird narratives where the application of power, save by your own narrow constraints, is bad. At least you've removed yourself from the process, becoming one of the legion of witless verbiage-spewing malcontents.

You mean weird like the scenario you just articulated? Okay.

If Europe had been left to it's own devices in the so-called 1st World War, I think there's a very good chance the so called 2nd one never would have happened. Imagine the lives that might have saved.

As for democratizing the process of going to war, I'd start with a full public inquiry into all of our alliances and treaties and put the question of whether to maintain them to referendum. In conjunction with this I'd pass a law that makes it mandatory that the public likewise pass through referendum any decision to send troops abroad.

You of course would rather we all bow to 'our' masters and die as we're told.

By the way, I haven't removed myself from anything, in fact I'm on my way out the door right now to an APC meeting.

[Shady]

If Europe had been left to it's own devices in the so-called 1st World War, I think there's a very good chance the so called 2nd one never would have happened.

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a wonderful Christmas!

[DogOnPorch]

eyeballs: If Europe had been left to it's own devices in the so-called 1st World War, I think there's a very good chance the so called 2nd one never would have happened. Imagine the lives that might have saved.

Yeah...Germany would have won in 1919...lol.

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

[g_bambino]

As for democratizing the process of going to war, I'd start with a full public inquiry into all of our alliances and treaties and put the question of whether to maintain them to referendum. In conjunction with this I'd pass a law that makes it mandatory that the public likewise pass through referendum any decision to send troops abroad.

You see, this fantastical scenario is possible only if you were supreme dictator of the world: "All people in all countries will vote... WHEN I TELL THEM TO! Eyeball has spoken."

[DogOnPorch]

You see, this fantastical scenario is possible only if you were supreme dictator of the world: "All people in all countries will vote... WHEN I TELL THEM TO! Eyeball has spoken."

Not only that, it'd be doubtful that any nation would make a treaty with you if it could be nulled by a simple vote of the generally poorly informed population @ large.

[g_bambino]

Not only that, it'd be doubtful that any nation would make a treaty with you if it could be nulled by a simple vote of the generally poorly informed population @ large.

I also like the scenario made possible where one country's populace votes to send its troops to invade a neighbour and the target country can't deploy troops in defence beyond the ever-encroaching border until a national referendum is organised, held, and the votes tallied, by which point the invaders' flag has been long flying over the conquered capital.

[dre]

Indeed, the policy of appeasement, which the West is now engaging in once again, is the path to ruin.

Indeed, the policy of appeasement, which the West is now engaging in once again, is the path to ruin.

Man... If invading random middle eastern countries and killing hundreds of thousands of people is appeasement Id hate to see whats not.

[eyeball]

Yeah...Germany would have won in 1919...lol.

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

And just as likely become what it is today except much sooner and just as likely without what's his name ever being heard from.

You see, this fantastical scenario is possible only if you were supreme dictator of the world: "All people in all countries will vote... WHEN I TELL THEM TO! Eyeball has spoken."

Horseshit I have, I never said that at all.

Not only that, it'd be doubtful that any nation would make a treaty with you if it could be nulled by a simple vote of the generally poorly informed population @ large.

On the contrary, generally poorly informed populations make it even easier for unaccountable opaque governments to declare wars on other people.

I also like the scenario made possible where one country's populace votes to send its troops to invade a neighbour and the target country can't deploy troops in defence beyond the ever-encroaching border until a national referendum is organised, held, and the votes tallied, by which point the invaders' flag has been long flying over the conquered capital.

I said a referendum to send our troops abroad, not to defend our border. Get a grip.

[Jack Weber]

Yeah...Germany would have won in 1919...lol.

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

Think about that,though...

WW1 was the last imperial war in Europe.All that it would have meant in the end would have been a greater result for Germany than they had in 1870 and'71.They simply would have humiliated the French even more,which is never a bad thing,is it?

But,the German defeat was'nt what brought on the problems afterward...It was the Treaty of Versailles,which was design to punish and impoverish Germany,mostly at the behest of the French,because it dared to challenge French dominance on the continent for the previous 50 years.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Jack Weber

[bush_cheney2004]

....If Europe had been left to it's own devices in the so-called 1st World War, I think there's a very good chance the so called 2nd one never would have happened. Imagine the lives that might have saved.

Ummmm....OK....but Japan is not in Europe. Just sayin'

[eyeball]

Ummmm....OK....but Japan is not in Europe. Just sayin'

You figured that out all by yourself?

[bush_cheney2004]

You figured that out all by yourself?

Is Nagasaki in France?