hiroshima anniversary

[ridgerunner]

and more to a point it was not the americans that discovered nucler fission
it was discovered and put into use by ernest rutherford of new zealand

so dont blame the US for for "releasing the evil"

perfecting the method was done by scientists in berlin in the late 30s

all we did was reduce allied casualties to end the war quickly

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

How is it racist to maintain on the basis of credible evidence that the atomic bombing of Japan was unnecessary?

BYW, I do not hate the United States, but I do not give the United States the benefit of the doubt.

Accusing me of being an American bashing, military hating racist is an example of the adhominem fallacy,

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

and the red herring fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html

In my debates with you I do not dispute your intelligence or integrity. I rarely do that with anyone.

Well let's take another look;

On 6 August the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and on 9 August Russia entered the war. In the succeeding meetings of the Supreme War Direction Council, the differences of opinion previously existing as to the Potsdam terms persisted exactly as before. By using the urgency brought about through fear of further atomic bombing attacks, the Prime Minister found it possible to bring the Emperor directly into the discussions of the Potsdam terms. Hirohito, acting as arbiter, resolved the conflict in favor of unconditional surrender.

The public admission of defeat by the responsible Japanese leaders, which constituted the political objective of the United States offensive begun in 1943, was thus secured prior to invasion and while Japan was still possessed of some 2,000,000 troops and over 9,000 planes in the home islands. Military defeats in the air, at sea and on the land, destruction of shipping by submarines and by air, and direct air attack with conventional as well as atomic bombs, all contributed to this accomplishment.

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that 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.

The source you cited does not support your contention that use of Atomic bombs was not necessary. In fact, it contradicts your assertion and concluded that use of the Atomic bombs was necessary. But then you know that, you cherry picked your quote to support your position. The survey determined that while Japan almost certainly would have surrendered by the end of 1945, most of the factors leading to that conclusion were not known in August, 1945.

And you are a racist, we've been over this part before. You even call yourself a "scientific racist"

And you do bash the United States; you've said before you would rather live anywhere BUT the United States.

And you do hate the military, you've said that before as well.

And I'll call you on it when you cherry pick a source to support your position; when you do that you LIE.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shootersa

And I'll call you on it when you cherry pick a source to support your position; when you do that you LIE.

This is not a lie; it is the the final evaluation of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that 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."

You have grown up believing that the atomic bombing of Japan was necessary. I have pointed out why it was not. Rather than change your opinion on the matter, given the input of new information, you attack me personally.

[richief]

Where is your proof that Japan would have capitulated? Also add in the projected figures of allied deaths during the period after the Japanese's actual surrender. Then tell me at what cost you would have fought on and when you would have dropped the bombs. Remember every B29 carried 11 crew and every bombing mission lost planes. Run along to your charts and graphs room and come back with the answers.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by richief

Where is your proof that Japan would have capitulated? Also add in the projected figures of allied deaths during the period after the Japanese's actual surrender. Then tell me at what cost you would have fought on and when you would have dropped the bombs. Remember every B29 carried 11 crew and every bombing mission lost planes. Run along to your charts and graphs room and come back with the answers.

What would you accept as proof? You remind me of a Protestant Fundamentalist demanding proof of evolution, when that "proof" consists of a monkey in a laboratory evolving into a human.

In this thread I have presented credible evidence that the atomic bombing of Japan was not necessary.

[richief]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

What would you accept as proof? You remind me of a Protestant Fundamentalist demanding proof of evolution, when that "proof" consists of a monkey in a laboratory evolving into a human.

In this thread I have presented credible evidence that the atomic bombing of Japan was not necessary.

I suggest you post proof that the estimated figures of USAAF casualities and deaths between the launch of the bombs and when you "credibly" say they would have surrendered, then give me the figure you are willing to go to before dropping the bomb

Then if you are relying on a ground invasion the projected figures and again how high up that list you are willing to go.

[richief]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

What would you accept as proof? You remind me of a Protestant Fundamentalist demanding proof of evolution, when that "proof" consists of a monkey in a laboratory evolving into a human.

In this thread I have presented credible evidence that the atomic bombing of Japan was not necessary.

The same could be said when you discuss deidre, Chunky gave you what you demanded, but then you change the goal posts on what you would and would not accept.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by richief

The same could be said when you discuss deidre, Chunky gave you what you demanded, but then you change the goal posts on what you would and would not accept.

There is quite a bit more evidence that the atomic bombing was unnecessary than there is for deidre79 being a man.

Nevertheless, you are attempting to change the subject to a topic you believe is painful to me. You asked for proof that the atomic bombing was unnecessary. After pointing out that I have posted impressive evidence in this thread that the atomic bombing was unnecessary I asked what you would consider as proof.

I ask again. What would you consider to be proof?

[ridgerunner]

dl show uneqivicable evidence that the bombs did not end the was any sooner than they did and you have a chance
but no such evidence exists because in defeat an army will say what is necesary to avoid undue embarrasment
the japanese military was taught to never surrender at any cost
the government may have folded but the army would fight on

[Distant Lover]

The question of whether or not the atomic bombing of Japan was necessary to end the war remains relevant. Those who believe that the bombs were necessary usually also believe that the United States is always or usually right in foreign affairs, especially when military force is used. They also tend to believe that in military matters the strongest response possible is the best response.

I can think of a number of occasions in addition to the situation in Japan when a tempered response would have been more appropriate.

For example, after the Inchon Landing during the Korean War the North Korean Army was in full retreat. The Communist Chinese government said it would not oppose the presence of South Korean soldiers in North Korea, but it would not permit American soldiers to occupy the other side of the Yalu River.

Gen. MacArthur thought that the Chinese were bluffing, and that a Chinese invasion of Korea would be easy to counter by air power. He was wrong. The Chinese did intervene. The War continued for three more years. North Korea continues to exist and to be an international problem.

A more appropriate and moderate response would have been to conquer half of North Korea, while leaving the rest as a buffer between Allied forces and China. The buffer would have been too small to be much of a threat to the world. It would assuage Chinese concerns about an allied invasion of China. The Japanese invasion of China began with a jump across the Yalu River.

During the War in the Gulf George the Greater had the sense to restrict the allied invasion to Kuwait.

Most of us will agree that the later invasion of Iraq by George the Lesser was a mistake. Saddam Hussein was evil. He was also thoroughly house trained. He was probably more threatened by al Qaeda than we were.

[darthel0101]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

George the Lesser was a mistake

+1 on all issues international

[ridgerunner]

dl do you believe that either bush jr or sr did not have personell in any mideast nation other than kuwait?

bush sr held "allied troops" at bay but let certian US troops walk right in
hell he killed more political leaders than hitler did

and we did not invade iraq
we responded to a credible threat
and further more the 1st attack in iraq was ordered by sr
operation desert storm aka the 1st gulf war

clinton was too busy fucking interns to fight a war
then here comes idiot jr and puts us right back into it


you need to unfuck your views on military history and see it for what it was at the time that it happened

next you will say that in viet nam we had no reason to destroy Hue city
and that the tet offensive never took place even under an agreed cease fire

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

next you will say that in viet nam we had no reason to destroy Hue city
and that the tet offensive never took place even under an agreed cease fire

The War in Vietnam was tragically futile. All we needed to do to avoid that war was to sign and honor the Geneva Agreement of 1954. That agreement called for elections to be held to unify North and South Vietnam. It specifically said that the division of Vietnam was temporary. It specifically forbade the entry of foreign troops into Vietnam.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1...indochina.html

This is why the United States refused to sign and honor the treaty:

"I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."

- Source: Dwight D. Eisenhower, Mandate for Change, 1953-56 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Compnay, Inc., 1963), p. 372
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/vietnam/ddeho.htm

[richief]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

There is quite a bit more evidence that the atomic bombing was unnecessary than there is for deidre79 being a man.

Nevertheless, you are attempting to change the subject to a topic you believe is painful to me. You asked for proof that the atomic bombing was unnecessary. After pointing out that I have posted impressive evidence in this thread that the atomic bombing was unnecessary I asked what you would consider as proof.

I ask again. What would you consider to be proof?

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Did you read the posts?

Post the estimated loss of aircraft between the date of the bomb dropping and you estimation of when the war would of ended.

Post the same figures for a beach landing supported by paratroops, similar to the Normandy invasion.

Tell me those figures and then tell me that the bomb was not needed.

Edit.

Put yourself in the position of you or a relative being in the "forlorn hope" or being a crewmember of a B29 each one had an orbat of 11.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by richief

Are you being obtuse on purpose? Did you read the posts?

Post the estimated loss of aircraft between the date of the bomb dropping and you estimation of when the war would of ended.

Post the same figures for a beach landing supported by paratroops, similar to the Normandy invasion.

Tell me those figures and then tell me that the bomb was not needed.

Obviously I cannot post the data you mention. The United States Strategic Bombing survey had access to that information. They concluded that the bomb was not needed.

[baller16]

The worst thing to ever happen to humanity. For as long as even one person knows how to build a nuclear bomb (let alone having hundreds of thousands probably currently in existence already built), nobody will ever be safe from it.

Don't get it confused and think the US was the only one though.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

This is not a lie; it is the the final evaluation of the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that 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."

You have grown up believing that the atomic bombing of Japan was necessary. I have pointed out why it was not. Rather than change your opinion on the matter, given the input of new information, you attack me personally.

(SIGH)
Again, you quote only the part of the survey that supports your ideology. When you do that, you are lying and giving undeserved weight to your position by incorrectly quoting the conclusion of a trusted source.

The bombing survey determined that based on what was known at the time, use of Atomic weapons was justified.

The survey went into great detail, noting that based on information learned AFTER THE SURRENDER that it was likely Japan would have surrendered 3-4 months later if the bombs had not been dropped.

An estimated 250,000 Japanese died in the two bombings, including deaths from radiation poisoning in the following months.

The best estimate the allies had in July, 1945 was that between 400,000 and 800,000 allied and Japanese deaths would occur during an invasion of Japan. These estimates were based on experience from the invasion of Okinawa, Iwo Jima and the very strong belief that even when faced with certain death, Japanese soldiers would not surrender. During the invasion of Okinawa Japanese civilians attacked armed US military with sticks and rocks, and many more civilians jumped from cliffs and committed suicide rather than be captured by US military personnel.

The firebombing of Tokyo in April 1945 caused 125,000 Japanese casualties.

If the decision was made not to use Atomic weapons, the plan was to continue with the bombing of Japanese cities, air attacks on transportation lines, and a continued blockade of Japan. It does not take much to realize that;
1) A non nuclear war plan, including continuing with bombing of cities, transportation and a blockade would have easily killed at least as many Japanese as the two atomic bombs did.
2) A continuing non nuclear war plan for even 3 months against Japan would have certainly killed thousands of US military personnel. US casualties to drop the two atomic bombs was .........ZERO.

I did grow up believing the use of Atomic weapons against Japan was necessary. Years ago I read an article that challenged that belief. My sister in law had relatives on the Missouri during the formal surrender of Japan. They were Japanese. She and I had a lengthy debate about it, and I did some more reading to decide if indeed, the atomic bombing of Japan was necessary. I actually read the source you cited, and when I read your quote from it many posts ago, I spotted your Lie.

Many years ago I decided independently that the use of atomic weapons against Japan was justified, because it certainly saved American lives and probably saved Japanese lives as well.

I "attacked" you because you have lied to support your position by citing out of context a reliable source.

Anyone who reads the bombing survey would understand that it supported the decision to use atomic weapons. Rather than change your opinion on the matter, given the input of new information, you cherry picked a quote to support your position. You lied.

Now really, who is unwilling to change their position based on new information?

[richief]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Obviously I cannot post the data you mention. The United States Strategic Bombing survey had access to that information. They concluded that the bomb was not needed.

So you can get all the info that supports your position from the USSBS but none that shows an estimation of US casualties if the bomb had not been dropped, strange that isn't it. Or do the figures go so high that it made your arse tremble.

The figure need only be 1, 1 US casualty should be enough to cause to use the bomb, but I guess the estimations run into thousands of airmen dying and even more on the assault beaches, then an estimation of Japanese casualties civilian and military would out reach the Allies death total, plus the USSR would have taken more than a few islands up north.

Originally Posted by baller16

The worst thing to ever happen to humanity. For as long as even one person knows how to build a nuclear bomb (let alone having hundreds of thousands probably currently in existence already built), nobody will ever be safe from it.

Don't get it confused and think the US was the only one though.

I understand how you see the danger and agree with you, we are now caught in a nuclear stand-off with everyone else in the world, non of the powers that hold the bomb will give it up, and why should they, most of them are stable countries apart from N Korea, France, the UK, Russia or seem stable as does the US, Pakistan and India are pointing them at each other and the suspected Israeli devices are for a last stand against their neighbours.

I don't, however, understand your last comment, as far as the world knows only the US as ever used nuclear weapons strategically, all the others were test bombs, unless it is that what you refer to, and yes I agree there is no point in testing them over and over, we know you got them and we know they work, and all European powers should be held accountable for the damage they have coursed down south as is the US for their bombs in the dessert and the Russians for their bombs they tested, them fuckers could not even keep a reactor online safely, why because saying something was not working was treason because of the Bolshevik ideology.

[baller16]

No I meant that the US weren't the only ones developing a bomb during WWII. I've heard the Germans were the first to start research though I could be wrong about that. The point is that a lot of people seem to think it was the US who started it and then everybody followed but in reality, it was just a race to the finish line.

[ridgerunner]

the german did begin and perfect the methods
if anyone wants links please let me know
also i did post the name of the scientist from new zealand that made the most credible insight to the development that became what the scientists in berlin used to develop the 1st bomb


and distant i am still the awaiting 100% credible evidence ill most likely never see it because it does not exist

[foreverhorny18]

"The figure need only be 1, 1 US casualty should be enough to cause to use the bomb"

Please forgive me if I have misinterpreted that but it sounds like you think one American life is worth more then hundreds of thousands of Japanese.

[ridgerunner]

the numbers do not matter it is the people that matter for each has a family that misses them even after 10,000 years
and since this about 1 day in history how many futures might it have saved


also compare the devastation to fokushima

[foreverhorny18]

But back on topic, yes the Germans were working on an atomic bomb as well, and add to that they had the V1 and V2 rockets it's feasible that if the war had gone on for much longer they would have developed the technology to launch nuclear bombs with rockets. which would have changed the outcome of the war.

The allies knew this of course and so a lot of work went towards sabotaging the German nuclear program, I think there was even a film made about it called the heroes of Telemark.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by foreverhorny18

But back on topic, yes the Germans were working on an atomic bomb as well, and add to that they had the V1 and V2 rockets it's feasible that if the war had gone on for much longer they would have developed the technology to launch nuclear bombs with rockets. which would have changed the outcome of the war.

The allies knew this of course and so a lot of work went towards sabotaging the German nuclear program, I think there was even a film made about it called the heroes of Telemark.

During the war scientists in Germany, Russia, and even Japan were working on atomic bomb projects. After the war it was discovered that the Germans and Japanese had not made much process.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

During the war scientists in Germany, Russia, and even Japan were working on atomic bomb projects. After the war it was discovered that the Germans and Japanese had not made much process.

And of course your point is that given time, either would have developed a usable atomic bomb. And used it.

It's interesting that Russia had major advances in development of their bomb program only after WWII, partially because they captured German scientists and laboratories, and partially because they spied on US development efforts.

Human progress dictated that Atomic weapons would be developed. To hold that the US "opened Pandora's box" begs the question; The nuclear age was going to happen. It is to humanities credit that so far we haven't blown the world up. Yet.

Consider an alternate universe where either Germany or Japan had atomic weapons towards the end of WWII. The only question would have been who would use it first; the US, Germany, or Japan.

And consider the probable outcome of a world II with nuclear weapons.

Then thank the crew of the Enola Gay, President Truman, and the Manhattan project.

There was no risk that any nation but the US would have the bomb before the end of WWII, although that was not known then.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki did demonstrate to the world why nuclear weapons should never be used. I believe a major reason why no other weapons have been used in anger is the realization that the horror visited on your country in retaliation is not worth the price.

[gefap]

Originally Posted by LORCO
Boy have we learned to selectively edit history! There was NO need to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. They were close to surrender anyhow, had no allies left, and were just straight up losing. We wanted to upstage the Russians. As far as the "invasion that would have killed half a million people", military planners did not think such an invasion was necessary, and the 500,000 number was just made up off of the top of someone's head. Most, if not all, of the top military commanders thought that dropping the bombs was unnecessary and said so. Eisenhower said so while he was president. The decision to do so was political, it was not made out of any military necessity. Most of the rationale is just making up excuses to try and cover up that fact that many at the time, before and after, did not think it necessary to use nuclear weapons. It's meant to distract from how terrible nuclear weapons really are, and to keep us from truly analyzing this chapter of our history.

Originally Posted by blonde baby

Well.. Either we wouldve invaded and lose even more us lives against an enemy that doesnt know when to give.. as well y let Russia get to Tokyo first, we already let them get to Berlin even though it shouldve been the usa first in.. Nuking them ended it quickly and was the simplest solution to not risk us soldiers.. Besides, japan started it.. So we ended

not only is that guy way off and your right on, a huge factor is how expensive war actually is, the germans really lost because they could not mass produce there equipment cheaply, it was far more advanced then ours. also getting to the front is large cost in itself not to mention logistics. so to build enough tanks and bombers and rifles an machine guns and train enough troops would have been staggering, the cost of invading mainland japan would have been huge in lives aswell, americans and japaneese civilians included, don't forget that japans buildings at the time were mostly wooden, and firebombing had already killed many, so we could have kept up the fireboming then invaded and used artillery with incendiary rounds to start fires killing even more in the mean time japaneese soldiers killing g.is and marines and pilots, probably would have gone on for at least another year and half two years. now the okinawa museum states that over 100,000 civilians were killed, so add a larger invasion force a larger japaneese force and you get more civilians killed. in the end there would have been almost as many japanees casualties with or with out fatboy and little man. the major difference, no more american lives and by comparison to an invasion monatarily cheap.

[ridgerunner]

the defense of the opposition to the invasion of japan is based only in the hatrid for the troops that are to serve for the future of the american people, all who oppose the actions we will take are here to be labled as traitors to the nation

and even those that are of japanese descent that oppose the war shall be placed in camps as so they may not divulge secrets to thier families in japan and as shall be the germans




the bomb ended the war on japan
and hitler killed himself instead of going to his mountaintop retreat