Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[DogOnPorch]

http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/massacres_pacific.html

[dre]

We're talking about WW2....I'm for accurate history. Not rose coloured glasses.

No youre for believing without question one sides account, and dutifully repeating the exact same propoganda and rationalization that was spoonfed to you. I know you think thats accurate history but its only one piece of it.

[dre]

What about dogs and cats? Or Harpy seals?

What about people working in big office buildings?

[DogOnPorch]

No youre for believing without question one sides account, and dutifully repeating the exact same propoganda and rationalization that was spoonfed to you. I know you think thats accurate history but its only one piece of it.

Oh really? What part of the War in the Pacific am I in error?

[dre]

Oh really? What part of the War in the Pacific am I in error?

So far, only the parts youve mentioned.

[DogOnPorch]

So far, only the parts youve mentioned.

Like....please expand.......

[DogOnPorch]

Heat 'em up!

Yes...Iwo Jima was THE place for flamethrowers. Those devils just weren't comin' out.

[ToadBrother]

If targetting civilians is the moral way to fight wars then lets nix all the treaties weve signed since WW2. And remember all your assumptions, and post hoc rationalization when an ENEMY using those same rationalizations chooses YOUR city to make an example of. You can applaud their moral superiority the last moment before youre vaporized.

I don't think morals has anything to do with it. I think ending the war with a minimum of casualties, civilian and military, and preventing the Soviets from crossing the Sea of Japan (they were right next door) was what counted. Generals have long had to make terrible decisions, decisions that doubtless haunted them for the rest of their days, but ultimately a commander in the field or a commander in chief ultimately responsible for his troops and the national interests of the nation he works for cannot afford the luxuries you demand. That's why we should avoid wars where we can.

But I'm still waiting for your alternative that would have saved all those lives.

[bush_cheney2004]

What about people working in big office buildings?

Well hell, they're the first to go! Remember, it's Blast....Heat....then Radiation!

[dre]

Like....please expand.......

Just go back through the thread and read all your arguments.

[DogOnPorch]

Or where the things we've said re: the history of the War in the Pacific are in error as Dre insists.

[ToadBrother]

Thats just another strawman. My position is that Im AGAINST the wholesale slaughter of civilians during war time. Youre for it.

Bullcrap. If you were, then the atomic bomb was the best way to do it. A conventional bombing campaign would have killed and maimed many more (and certainly the bombing runs in Japan and Germany ought to be proof of that). But worse is this noxious and vile way in which you assign positions to people, these strawmen of our opinions. Even worse is that you still won't provide these supposed alternatives Truman had that would have been so much better.

In short, your full of crap. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, but you've got this pathetic moral outrage that you feel is proof against the facts.

The facts were:

1. The Reds had declared war on Japan and were going to cross the Sea of Japan.

2. Even without the pressure of having the Soviets seize more Japanese soil than they already had (ever heard of the Kurils, my moralizing friend?), a full-blown naval blockade would have been enormously difficult, enormously expensive, wouldn't have accomplished the job, and if it did, would have seen millions starve.

3. A land invasion would have cost tens of thousands of Allied (read: American) casualties, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese lives (the extraordinarily spirited defense of Okinawa proved that one), would have taken months, would have lead to far greater devastation.

If you have some other option, then put it on the table.

Edited August 10, 2010 by ToadBrother

[DogOnPorch]

Just go back through the thread and read all your arguments.

Could you link the post for us all...thanks.

Edited August 10, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

Well hell, they're the first to go! Remember, it's Blast....Heat....then Radiation!

It's actually heat-blast-heat-radiation...remember zee flash.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes...Iwo Jima was THE place for flamethrowers. Those devils just weren't comin' out.

I'd rather carry the radio than an M2 flamethrower! No smoking!

[bush_cheney2004]

It's actually heat-blast-heat-radiation...remember zee flash.

Hopefully they will be surfing Youtube at work and won't see the flash.

[ToadBrother]

Or where the things we've said re: the history of the War in the Pacific are in error as Dre insists.

Dre can't even provide the alternatives beyond some ludicrous naval blockade and a bombing campaign (I don't see how several thousand conventional bombs knocking every major Japanese city into a fiery hades is somehow better than two atomic bombs, but Dre seems incensed by civilians killed by these kinds of weapons, seemingly have no problems with conventional explosives, bullets and starvation).

[DogOnPorch]

I'd rather carry the radio than an M2 flamethrower! No smoking!

I'll be in the F6F doing HVAR Holy Moses runs on the bunkers, thanks.

[DogOnPorch]

Dre can't even provide the alternatives beyond some ludicrous naval blockade and a bombing campaign (I don't see how several thousand conventional bombs knocking every major Japanese city into a fiery hades is somehow better than two atomic bombs, but Dre seems incensed by civilians killed by these kinds of weapons, seemingly have no problems with conventional explosives, bullets and starvation).

Indeed. By 1945 the blockade was total...complete...Japan had no more cargo/tanker ships or the fuel to run them.

Dre mentions the blockade was nearly in place...but won't elaborate.

[DogOnPorch]

Just go back through the thread and read all your arguments.

Can you post that link? You saw it so you must know where it is. Otherwise I'll accept your unconditional surrender.

[DogOnPorch]

Hopefully they will be surfing Youtube at work and won't see the flash.

They'll get the Twitter, I'm sure...

[dre]

I don't think morals has anything to do with it. I think ending the war with a minimum of casualties, civilian and military, and preventing the Soviets from crossing the Sea of Japan (they were right next door) was what counted. Generals have long had to make terrible decisions, decisions that doubtless haunted them for the rest of their days, but ultimately a commander in the field or a commander in chief ultimately responsible for his troops and the national interests of the nation he works for cannot afford the luxuries you demand. That's why we should avoid wars where we can.

But I'm still waiting for your alternative that would have saved all those lives.

But I'm still waiting for your alternative that would have saved all those lives.

I already posted an alternative, you didnt read it.

My idea was to continue and tighten the naval blockade, continue aerial bombardment of military targets, and since there was already 4 more nukes on the way (with the next scheduled to be ready in the third week of august) I would have at least TRIED to detonate them in areas that would still demonstrate the awsome capability without as many human casualties. If it didnt work youd still have more bombs left over to do what you want with.

I also would have mentioned the nuclear bombs in the postdam ultimatum.

But discussing alternatives post hoc is useless. Youve already been thouroughly indoctrinated with the western position that there was no other choice. Youll just speculate that other ideas would not have worked, and all I can do is speculate otherwise. Theres really not much point.

I also reject your view of morality as a whole that puts forth the proposition that human lives are a means to an end and its ok to sacrifice someone elses based on the belief that more net lives will be saved. Theres actually a famous question designed to expose the inherent conflict between positions like this and intrinsic human morality. It goes something like this...

Theres 5 people in a hospital... 1 needs to heart to survive, the other needs a liver, the third and fourth each need kidneys. The fifth is perfectly healthy.

If human morals are predicated on reducing the net ammount of lives lost then it makes sense to sieze the heart, liver, and kidneys from the fifth patient and install them in the other 4. 4 people live this way, and only the fifth dies. If you dont do this 4 die and only one survives.

My position on this from a moral standpoint is more absolute, and more in tune with the world today and all the treaties signed since ww2. And that basically says that there IS no justification for targetting civilians, and even if you can find an argument from utility (which you always can if you look hard enough) its still wrong.

[dre]

Bullcrap. If you were, then the atomic bomb was the best way to do it. A conventional bombing campaign would have killed and maimed many more (and certainly the bombing runs in Japan and Germany ought to be proof of that). But worse is this noxious and vile way in which you assign positions to people, these strawmen of our opinions. Even worse is that you still won't provide these supposed alternatives Truman had that would have been so much better.

In short, your full of crap. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, but you've got this pathetic moral outrage that you feel is proof against the facts.

The facts were:

1. The Reds had declared war on Japan and were going to cross the Sea of Japan.

2. Even without the pressure of having the Soviets seize more Japanese soil than they already had (ever heard of the Kurils, my moralizing friend?), a full-blown naval blockade would have been enormously difficult, enormously expensive, wouldn't have accomplished the job, and if it did, would have seen millions starve.

3. A land invasion would have cost tens of thousands of Allied (read: American) casualties, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese lives (the extraordinarily spirited defense of Okinawa proved that one), would have taken months, would have lead to far greater devastation.

If you have some other option, then put it on the table.

If you have some other option, then put it on the table.

I did twice now and you ignored it both times.

[ToadBrother]

I did twice now and you ignored it both times.

And how would either of those options prevented a large number of deaths, and more to the point prevented a Soviet invasion?

[dre]

Bullcrap. If you were, then the atomic bomb was the best way to do it. A conventional bombing campaign would have killed and maimed many more (and certainly the bombing runs in Japan and Germany ought to be proof of that). But worse is this noxious and vile way in which you assign positions to people, these strawmen of our opinions. Even worse is that you still won't provide these supposed alternatives Truman had that would have been so much better.

In short, your full of crap. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, but you've got this pathetic moral outrage that you feel is proof against the facts.

The facts were:

1. The Reds had declared war on Japan and were going to cross the Sea of Japan.

2. Even without the pressure of having the Soviets seize more Japanese soil than they already had (ever heard of the Kurils, my moralizing friend?), a full-blown naval blockade would have been enormously difficult, enormously expensive, wouldn't have accomplished the job, and if it did, would have seen millions starve.

3. A land invasion would have cost tens of thousands of Allied (read: American) casualties, hundreds of thousands if not millions of Japanese lives (the extraordinarily spirited defense of Okinawa proved that one), would have taken months, would have lead to far greater devastation.

If you have some other option, then put it on the table.

But worse is this noxious and vile way in which you assign positions to people, these strawmen of our opinions.

Thats just pure fucking horseshit, the opposite has happened. Iv had the idea of invading attributed to me about 5 times already by you, Cory, and Trevor, and I never mentioned that once.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about, but you've got this pathetic moral outrage that you feel is proof against the facts.

Neither do you. Youve bought one account hook line, and sinker, and its exactly the account your government spend millions spoon feeding you. A lot of propoganda and public relations work went into you having the opinion you do today, and theres lots of examples of how they manipulated information to keep the sheep feeding from the right trough.

News of the atomic bombing were greeted enthusiastically in the U.S.; a poll in Fortune magazine in late 1945 showed a significant minority of Americans wishing that more atomic bombs could have been dropped on Japan.[89] The initial positive response was supported by the imagery presented to the public (mainly the powerful mushroom cloud) and the censorship of photographs that showed corpses incinerated by the blast as well as photos of maimed survivors.[89] As an example, a member of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, Lieutenant Daniel McGovern, used a film crew to document the results. The film crew's work resulted in a three-hour documentary entitled The Effects of the Atomic Bombs Against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The documentary included images from hospitals showing the human effects of the bomb; it showed burned out buildings and cars, and rows of skulls and bones on the ground. When sent to the U.S., it was mentioned widely in the U.S. press, then quietly suppressed and never shown. It was classified "top secret" for the next 22 years

Imagery of the atomic bombings was suppressed in Japan during the occupation[91] although some Japanese magazines had managed to publish images before the Allied occupation troops took control. The Allied occupation forces enforced censorship on anything "that might, directly or by inference, disturb public tranquility", and pictures of the effects on people on the ground were deemed inflammatory. A likely reason for the banning was that the images depicting burn victims and funeral pyres evoked similarities to the widely circulated images taken in liberated Nazi concentration camps.

Edited August 11, 2010 by dre