hiroshima anniversary

[AZRIEL]

fleshy.jpg

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shootersa

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were as necessary as Okinawa and Normandy.

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.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

[thikdik]

Bomb you to peace.
or
Bomb you to pieces.
It's a winning formula.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

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.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

From DL's Source, page 26, the paragraphs before his posted quote;

"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.

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

And here we see an excellent example of how to selectively pick sources and quote them to support a particular position, even if the source overall does not support the position taken.

This study was conducted and published AFTER the war ended, during the occupation of Japan. Little or none of it was known or could have been made known to Truman as he made the final decision to use atomic weapons. Regardless, the study concludes that the use of atomic weapons did play a key role in the surrender of Japan.

The selective quote DL used would lead one to conclude otherwise, and do so in error. I think DL knew that when he posted it.

As one of my College professors was fond of saying; figures never lie, but liars figure.

[CS natureboy]

Nagasaki Marks Atomic Bomb Attack Anniversary
By MARI YAMAGUCHI 08/09/12 02:30 PM ET


#news_entries #ad_sharebox_260x60 img {padding:0px;margin:0px}






Paper lanterns float along the Urakami River as people pay tribute to the victims of the atomic bombing in Nagasaki, southern Japan, Thursday, Aug. 9, 2012. Nagasaki observed the 67th anniversary of the world's second atomic bomb attack. (AP Photo/Kyodo News)



TOKYO -- Japanese officials pledged to seek a society less reliant on nuclear energy as the country marked the 67th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki on Thursday.
About 6,000 people gathered at a peace park near the epicenter of the 1945 blast, including students and the mayor of one of the towns most affected by last year's nuclear plant disaster.
Almost a year and half after the world's second worst accident at a nuclear power plant, concerns about the safety of nuclear energy and radiation effects persist.
Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue said the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant, which was crippled by a tsunami last March, has exposed the risk of nuclear technology.
Taue urged Japan to make concrete plans to achieve a nuclear-free society and called for renewed commitment to a global ban on nuclear weapons.
"Many people in Fukushima still live in fear of radiation effects," Taue said.
Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda renewed his promise to seek a society less reliant to nuclear power in a mid- to long-term policy platform due out within weeks.
"We will compile an energy structure that would reassure the safety of the people," he said.
Japan is compiling its energy policy for the next two decades. Noda's government is making a decision on how much Japan should reduce the share of nuclear energy by 2030.

Within a three-day period in 1945, the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, first on Hiroshima, killing 140,000 people, and then on Nagasaki, killing 70,000. The attacks prompted Japan's World War II surrender.
The United States sent its ambassador, John Roos, to Nagasaki for the first time this year, a year after his deputy attended the ceremony.
.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1761305.html

[shootersa]

Ever notice?
The Japanese never mark the anniversary of their invasion of Nanking, or the attack on pearl Harbor, or the Bataan death march.

Wonder why that is?

[darthel0101]

Originally Posted by CS natureboy

Japanese officials pledged to seek a society less reliant on nuclear energy

Nuclear energy will be the only way to wean this world from carbon-based energy generation; renewable energy simply does not have the density to do so. Please note that I am not saying that FISSION plants will be able to do that, tho.

Most research into fusion has involved isotopes of Hydrogen spitting excess neutrons to generate energy to run a turbine in the same method which is used by fission plants; aneutronic fusion uses common Hydrogen (Protium -vs.- Deuterium or Tritium) to fuse with other elements (primary research is leaning towards B-11) and thus produce electrical energy at rates approaching and possibly exceeding 90% efficiency without producing radiation dangers. Note that efficiency rates that are lower imply energy being released into the environment and steam turbine systems are inherently less than 50% efficient.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shootersa

This study was conducted and published AFTER the war ended, during the occupation of Japan. Little or none of it was known or could have been made known to Truman as he made the final decision to use atomic weapons. Regardless, the study concludes that the use of atomic weapons did play a key role in the surrender of Japan.

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him 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 that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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 not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. 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."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

PAUL NITZE

(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:

"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE

(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Distant Lover]

Truman was unprepared when Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson explained the atomic project to him on April 25, 1945--13 days after he had become President--and told him of the then presumed fantastic power of an atomic bomb. Apart from its staggering military potential, what impressed the President almost immediately were its implications for American diplomacy and world peace.

There is more difficulty in assessing the importance of the bomb's use a s a modern version of the old sword-rattling technique in an effort to scare the Kremlin. Jonathan Daniels, son of Josephus, Wilson's Secretary of the Navy and a White House aide, has recorded what is the most unambiguous record of Truman's thinking. According to Daniels, when Truman discussed the bomb he said: .If it explodes, as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys.' Leo Szilard, the physicist, reports a similar expression of hope on the part of Byrnes, who said that the major purpose of the bomb was to *make Russia more manageable in Europe."
http://mises.org/journals/lar/pdfs/2_2/2_2_6.pdf

[Empress Lainie]

Only those who are old enough will remember that our own government gave a medal to the Japanese pilot who led the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I guess for a job well done and getting us into the war as FDR wanted.


FDR knew with prior notice about the attack and deliberately did nothing, blocking the information. This came out a few years after the war.

For you babies, FDR was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our first communist president and the longest serving president 1933-1945. A constitutional amendment (22nd I think) was passed to prevent anyone like the Kennedy's from duplicating it, or should I say Bushes?

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Empress Lainie

Only those who are old enough will remember that our own government gave a medal to the Japanese pilot who led the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I guess for a job well done and getting us into the war as FDR wanted.

Mitsuo Fuchida was the Japanese pilot. After the war he became an American citizen and a Christian. I could not find anything about him getting a medal.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Empress Lainie

FDR knew with prior notice about the attack and deliberately did nothing, blocking the information. This came out a few years after the war.

The Japanese code had been deciphered. American intelligence knew an attack was coming, but they did not know where. Roosevelt wanted the Japanese to attack, but it was not in his interest for the attack to be as devastating as it was. A Japanese attack that was repulsed would have been sufficient to get the United States into the war.

If the United States had not entered the war Germany would have conquered the mainland of Europe, and probably Great Britain. Japan would have conquered China and much of east Asia.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by Empress Lainie

For you babies, FDR was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our first communist president.

Now you are sounding as cranky as clarise.

[ridgerunner]

evidence that japan still needs to be removed from the face of the earth

http://strangeland.com/29517

[shyguyy2]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

evidence that japan still needs to be removed from the face of the earth

http://strangeland.com/29517

That is just sick.

[ridgerunner]

you say sick they say food
i say inhumane they say food
the japs also kill whales for food ever seen a whale get harpooned?
i have

[shyguyy2]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

ever seen a whale get harpooned?
i have

Not in person. Yeah the Asians kill alot of animals they shouldn't for all kinds of weird reasons. Usualy for furtility or something like that if the animal is rare and exotic.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

DWIGHT EISENHOWER

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him 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 that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. 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 not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. 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."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

PAUL NITZE

(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:

"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE

(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

And here we see yet another excellent example of how to selectively pick sources and quote them to support a particular position, even if the source overall does not support the position taken.

How much credibility can DL have left? None with me, which is sad, because he used to be a worthy debate opponent.

As one of my College professors was fond of saying; figures never lie, but liars figure.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shootersa

And here we see yet another excellent example of how to selectively pick sources and quote them to support a particular position, even if the source overall does not support the position taken.

How much credibility can DL have left? None with me, which is sad, because he used to be a worthy debate opponent.

As one of my College professors was fond of saying; figures never lie, but liars figure.

The point I have made is that President Truman had credible advisers who would have counseled against the use of the atomic bomb if he had asked them.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

The point I have made is that President Truman had credible advisers who would have counseled against the use of the atomic bomb if he had asked them.

No, the point you set out to make was that using the Atomic bomb in WWII was not necessary, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

You used a credible source to "prove" your point, but you were selective in what you quoted, to make it appear that a credible source concluded the use of Atomic weapons were not justified.

In fact, the credible source concluded the opposite; the use of atomic weapons did help bring about Japanese surrender.

You've been exposed. Resistance is futile.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shootersa

No, the point you set out to make was that using the Atomic bomb in WWII was not necessary, the Japanese were ready to surrender.

You used a credible source to "prove" your point, but you were selective in what you quoted, to make it appear that a credible source concluded the use of Atomic weapons were not justified.

In fact, the credible source concluded the opposite; the use of atomic weapons did help bring about Japanese surrender.

You've been exposed. Resistance is futile.

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

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.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

The Japanese surrendered on September 2, 1945. According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey the use of the atomic bomb may have hastened the Japanese surrender by one or two months, but it was not necessary.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

The Japanese surrendered on September 2, 1945. According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey the use of the atomic bomb may have hastened the Japanese surrender by one or two months, but it was not necessary.

Dude;
Not even after using drugs could once conclude your post;

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.

was intended to convey;

The point I have made is that President Truman had credible advisers who would have counseled against the use of the atomic bomb if he had asked them.

And the source you quoted refutes your statement that

the use of the atomic bomb may have hastened the Japanese surrender by one or two months, but it was not necessary.

In fact, what it said was;

.....................

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 only conclusion the report would draw about hastening the surrender was;

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.

And finally it said;

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...........

And Japan surrendered on August 15. It was formally accepted on September 2nd.

[richief]

Why the big debate over this, you cannot go back and stop it happening, there is no reset button or extra lives this is real life and the fact is you dropped the two bombs, good or bad makes no difference now and most of the players in that drama are dead already, some before their time, others lasted longer.

Give up on it, the bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered quicker than th e US thought they would, it saved US lives and in a time of war that is all that matters to the US, the life of one GI is far more valuable than the lives of those two cities.

[NoOneFamous]

What we did to Hiroshima was sad, shitty and very necessary.

[AZRIEL]

Hero Shima.jpg

[cheta2]

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

What we did to Hiroshima was sad, shitty and very necessary.

You are right about the first two assertions, and wrong about the third.

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

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.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

[ridgerunner]

dl i read that entire article and i can say honestly if someone just bombed my ass id say i was ready to give up too

the japs deserve still today to removed from existence thier only contribution to the world was the nambus

[Heyesey]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

What we did to Hiroshima was sad, shitty and very necessary.

Er.


Japan was willing to surrender with only one condition, that the Emperor be allowed to remain in place. The USA refused to accept the condition, dropped two atomic bombs, and then accepted a Japanese surrender on condition that the Emperor remained in place.

How were they necessary? The USA could have won the war in July on exactly the same terms with which it ended up winning in September.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by ridgerunner

dl i read that entire article and i can say honestly if someone just bombed my ass id say i was ready to give up too

the japs deserve still today to removed from existence thier only contribution to the world was the nambus

The Japanese are a gifted nation. They have produced a great civilization.

[ridgerunner]

heyesey the japs did not give up untill the mid 60s they forgot to tell people the was was lost
the government surrendered the people didnt

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by NoOneFamous

What we did to Hiroshima was sad, shitty and very necessary.

War is sad, shitty, and necessary.

What Japan did in Nanking, Bataan, China, and the Philipines was cruel, inhuman, and unnecessary.

Indeed, they built a fine civilization. And in the process tried to destroy 3 others. With a level of cruelty and sadism that has not been seen in modern times.

[BigTrobbing]

As far as I am concerned the japs deserved to be bombed. I also want to say is God Bless the men that flew in the Doolittle mission.

[wantsomefun]

.

[blonde baby]

The us nukes Japan the first time.. Offered surrender.. Waited 3 days.. Japan refused so we had to show them resistance was futile.. Nuke them again.. The give up, we spare an estimated 1 million us soldiers that would've died in a mainland invasion of Japan.. It was necessary.. It's war.. It happens

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by blonde baby

The us nukes Japan the first time.. Offered surrender.. Waited 3 days.. Japan refused so we had to show them resistance was futile.. Nuke them again.. The give up, we spare an estimated 1 million us soldiers that would've died in a mainland invasion of Japan.. It was necessary.. It's war.. It happens

.

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

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.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

[foreverhorny18]

Originally Posted by Druidoak

What I regret on this date is that Tokyo was not hit first and that we did not drop more. 10 sounds like a good round number. You know why? Because the fuckers would of done it to us if they had gotten them first. If you don't think so, you don't know shit about Jap culture past and present.

You are the one who obviously knows nothing of Japanese culture to make such a retarded comment such as this.

On a slightly different note, I know all about Japanese war crimes of ww2 but lesser known are American war crimes against the Japanese of which Hiroshima & Nagasaki (while both massive) are just a couple of many.

Much is made of Japanese ill treatment of captured prisoners of war but at least the Japanese took prisoners. Most times when a Japanese soldier tried to surrender they were shot dead, their head hacked off, boiled up and the skulls taken back to the US as souvenir's.

Or how about when Thousands of Japanese Americans were locked up in internment camps for years without charges or trial. Not a war crime but rather a crime against your own people. I could go on but I can't be bothered.

[foreverhorny18]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

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.
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm

I agree, It's widely known that the Japanese were looking for a way out of the war and were ready to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by foreverhorny18

I agree, It's widely known that the Japanese were looking for a way out of the war and were ready to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Incorrect. Wrong. Fails to recognize the facts.

If you read the entire report quoted by that rascal DL (not just what he wants you to see) you quickly realize that it wasn't until the second bomb was dropped that the Japanese government had enough consensus to surrender. The Japanese military hard liners even moved towards martial law after the first bomb was dropped and Russia entered the war so they could stop anyone attempting to negotiate peace.

"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. "

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#jstetw

It would be a good thing if you read the entire report before you spout DL'S drivel. He is wrong and intentionally cherry picked his quote to support his anti military views.

You should make up your own mind.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shootersa

Incorrect. Wrong. Fails to recognize the facts.

If you read the entire report quoted by that rascal DL (not just what he wants you to see) you quickly realize that it wasn't until the second bomb was dropped that the Japanese government had enough consensus to surrender. The Japanese military hard liners even moved towards martial law after the first bomb was dropped and Russia entered the war so they could stop anyone attempting to negotiate peace.

"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. "

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#jstetw

It would be a good thing if you read the entire report before you spout DL'S drivel. He is wrong and intentionally cherry picked his quote to support his anti military views.

You should make up your own mind.

Excuse me. When the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bomb, it is reasonable to assume that that is what they meant. At most the atomic bombing shortened the war by a month or two.

Now, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey had information President Truman did not have at the time. Nevertheless, I have documented in my comment #58 that credible advisers like Gen. MacArthur and Gen. Eisenhower would have counseled against the use of the atom bombs if they had been asked.

I have also presented reason to believe that Truman's real motive was to intimidate the Russians. Russians do not intimidate easily. They were aware of Truman's statement, "If it explodes, as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys." They did assume they were the "boys" mentioned. This prompted them to hasten their efforts to develop an atom bomb of their own.

[foreverhorny18]

Originally Posted by shootersa

Incorrect. Wrong. Fails to recognize the facts.

If you read the entire report quoted by that rascal DL (not just what he wants you to see) you quickly realize that it wasn't until the second bomb was dropped that the Japanese government had enough consensus to surrender. The Japanese military hard liners even moved towards martial law after the first bomb was dropped and Russia entered the war so they could stop anyone attempting to negotiate peace.

"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. "

http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#jstetw

It would be a good thing if you read the entire report before you spout DL'S drivel. He is wrong and intentionally cherry picked his quote to support his anti military views.

You should make up your own mind.

What makes you think I clicked on any of those links? This IS my own opinion, I've read many books about ww2 and it is my belief that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a conditional surrender before the bombs were dropped. Obviously after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reduced to ashes the Japanese had to surrender unconditionally, which is the only kind of surrender the US is usually ever ready to accept in most wars.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by foreverhorny18

What makes you think I clicked on any of those links? This IS my own opinion, I've read many books about ww2 and it is my belief that the Japanese were trying to negotiate a conditional surrender before the bombs were dropped. Obviously after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reduced to ashes the Japanese had to surrender unconditionally, which is the only kind of surrender the US is usually ever ready to accept in most wars.

If we had told the Japanese that they could keep their Emperor they would have surrendered sooner, perhaps much sooner.

Hirohito was a figurehead monarch who had little control over the Japanese war effort. If he had tried to stop Japanese aggression I believe the Japanese militarists would have assassination him and framed Japanese Communists.

[blonde baby]

The Japanese Emperor was basically just a figure head, while the people had the upmost respect and love for him.. Plus the Japanese military was planning coup and wanted to fight to the last man and were training civilians to fight.. Even though they were obviously blindgoing to lose

[shootersa]

Originally Posted by Distant Lover

Excuse me. When the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bomb, it is reasonable to assume that that is what they meant. At most the atomic bombing shortened the war by a month or two.

Now, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey had information President Truman did not have at the time. Nevertheless, I have documented in my comment #58 that credible advisers like Gen. MacArthur and Gen. Eisenhower would have counseled against the use of the atom bombs if they had been asked.

I have also presented reason to believe that Truman's real motive was to intimidate the Russians. Russians do not intimidate easily. They were aware of Truman's statement, "If it explodes, as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys." They did assume they were the "boys" mentioned. This prompted them to hasten their efforts to develop an atom bomb of their own.

No need to excuse yourself, I already have excused you.

The bombing survey also found that it was useless to determine which factors played the most significant roles in Japan's surrender, but that dropping the bomb was necessary.

And what anyone would have told Truman is irrelevant to Truman's decision if he didn't ask for their opinion.

And what possible value does injecting circumstantial trivia about Truman's "real" motive at this stage of the discussion?

The fact is, you cherry picked your quote to support your American bashing, military hating, racist positions and you got called on it.

By the way, pull up your socks. They're drooping.

[Distant Lover]

Originally Posted by shootersa

The fact is, you cherry picked your quote to support your American bashing, military hating, racist positions and you got called on it.

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.

[richief]

People keep telling me that Japan would have succumbed to conventional bombing and caved in with an unconditional surrender. Two points.

1. You do not know that and have not got sufficient evidence to do more than speculate.

2. USAAF was bombing Tokyo and other targets, but for every mission there were casualties, one raid in May lost 26 aircraft over Tokyo, a loss of 286 lives from one raid, how long could you have kept up that attrition before things were said in congress.

So if you want to cry for the lives of the Japanese do so but do not try to say the US had an easier softer option.

[LORCO]

Originally Posted by darthel0101

We have learned how to selectively edit history.

The many which were killed directly by those bombs (either blast or radiation poisoning) were just a fraction of the number which would have died if the islands were actually invaded. An invasion would have had other effects as well to the infrastructure and capabilities of Japan to recover from the war. It would likely NOT have ended with the emperor proclaiming that he was not a god but would have ended with their society clinging to a dead god shrouded in honor while they continued to whittle at the invaders.

Do a study on the mindset of the wartime Japanese and be prepared for some outre' lessons.

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.

[LORCO]

and by the way, I'm not trying to show sympathy for the Japanese. I have met people who were in China and others who were POWs under the Japanese Imperial Army. Sympathy has little to do with it - we unleashed a terrible evil upon the world and we have to face up to it! If we can justify using atomic weapons, if we can make up nonsense and perpetuate decades of bullshit to say that it's okay to do so, we set an example for others with nuclear weapons to do it as well. You think it's justified? Hope you enjoy the next nuclear war, you stupid assholes, because you asked for it!

[richief]

Unleashed what? Nuclear power, yes of course you did, as for "evil" there as not been a third nuclear explosion in anger, plenty of tests but no actual deployments, so with or without the first two loud bangs we would still be in this position.

[blonde baby]

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.

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