Trouble on London Bridge

mcgruff10

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

no but japan did have the Americans microwave a few hundred thousand people instantly just to show the world how big our penis was... good times

I also remember the domestic terrorism sarin train attacks in Japan... but you only seem to be focused on violence committed by Muslims...  you like to ignore the other 99% of the violent acts occurring in the world... how many ex-military have committed mass shootings in the USA the last 20 years? more than you can count, hombre  

Are you saying the United States was not justified in dropping the atomic bombs?

a few hundred thousand is definitely much more than anything I ve ever researched.  

There were some people actually involved in the decision to nuke Japan who weren't convinced that it was justified.... Many accounts suggest that the Japanese were on the brink of surrendering anyhow, and the only reason Truman went ahead with the bombing was to demonstrate the new found weapon that he was basically obsessed with, and to justify all the work that had been put into the project. Some believe the whole "kill a couple hundred thousand to save a million" theory was basically bullshit. (and a few hundred thousands sounds about right once you count all of those who died of radiation sickness in the years after the bombings).

I believe Truman was against the bombing and his military leaders misled him. I think he didn't learn what was happening until after the planes were on the way. That's why he was instrumental in changing how nuclear bombs and declarations of war were approved. Maybe I'm remembering wrong though.

tbergs said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

no but japan did have the Americans microwave a few hundred thousand people instantly just to show the world how big our penis was... good times

I also remember the domestic terrorism sarin train attacks in Japan... but you only seem to be focused on violence committed by Muslims...  you like to ignore the other 99% of the violent acts occurring in the world... how many ex-military have committed mass shootings in the USA the last 20 years? more than you can count, hombre  

Are you saying the United States was not justified in dropping the atomic bombs?

a few hundred thousand is definitely much more than anything I ve ever researched.  

There were some people actually involved in the decision to nuke Japan who weren't convinced that it was justified.... Many accounts suggest that the Japanese were on the brink of surrendering anyhow, and the only reason Truman went ahead with the bombing was to demonstrate the new found weapon that he was basically obsessed with, and to justify all the work that had been put into the project. Some believe the whole "kill a couple hundred thousand to save a million" theory was basically bullshit. (and a few hundred thousands sounds about right once you count all of those who died of radiation sickness in the years after the bombings).

I believe Truman was against the bombing and his military leaders misled him. I think he didn't learn what was happening until after the planes were on the way. That's why he was instrumental in changing how nuclear bombs and declarations of war were approved. Maybe I'm remembering wrong though.

diary entry: 8/9/45

"The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost.

"Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.

"We shall continue to use it until we completely destroy Japan's power to make war. Only a Japanese surrender will stop us." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 212).

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

no but japan did have the Americans microwave a few hundred thousand people instantly just to show the world how big our penis was... good times

I also remember the domestic terrorism sarin train attacks in Japan... but you only seem to be focused on violence committed by Muslims...  you like to ignore the other 99% of the violent acts occurring in the world... how many ex-military have committed mass shootings in the USA the last 20 years? more than you can count, hombre  

Are you saying the United States was not justified in dropping the atomic bombs?

a few hundred thousand is definitely much more than anything I ve ever researched.  

There were some people actually involved in the decision to nuke Japan who weren't convinced that it was justified.... Many accounts suggest that the Japanese were on the brink of surrendering anyhow, and the only reason Truman went ahead with the bombing was to demonstrate the new found weapon that he was basically obsessed with, and to justify all the work that had been put into the project. Some believe the whole "kill a couple hundred thousand to save a million" theory was basically bullshit. (and a few hundred thousands sounds about right once you count all of those who died of radiation sickness in the years after the bombings).

Who are these people you speak of? 

People who have been interviewed in documentaries I've seen about the bombings. People who were involved in the operation (probably all dead now). Sorry, I don't recall their names. But if you watch enough documentaries about it, you'll come across the same information. The most recent one I saw that touched on this was a documentary that's on Netflix. Perhaps just called "HIroshima"? But I'm not positive. But sure, there are plenty of sources suggesting these things. Should not be hard to find.

so just an opinion. got ya.  I could argue the other way and make a pretty compelling argument but this thread is not about this. And a few hundred thousand is way off...no more 250,000 and that is a pretty high estimate.  

Yeah, just an opinion, just as the opposite view point is. Although at the end of the day, I'd say the actual truth relies on whether or not Japan was actually geared up to surrender anyway. That is what makes all the difference. For me to form a solid belief about whether or not the bombing of Japan was moral, I would have to dig into the facts behind where the Japanese government and emperor and military stood at the time of the bombing. Some certainly believe that it is a fact that they were going to surrender anyhow. I have not bothered to research into that claim enough to confidently say what I believe one way or the other, and I don't think anyone should confidently believe that the bombing was the most moral decision unless they have done such research in an objective way.

I've researched it for about 20 plus years (wrote a paper about it in college..got published..blah blah blah)
just some quick points to consider:
japanese way of fighting (never give up, fight to the finish)
kamikazes (first used in leyte gulf 1944..more intense as we got closer to the homeland)
examine iwo jima/okinawa (as we got closer to the homeland the more fierce the japanese fought)
realize that the fire bombings of tokyo killed more people than the atomic bomb (still didn't surrender)
the japanese were ready to defend the homeland to the last man, woman and child.  Literally old people and children were taught how to use grenades and carry pitchforks in defense.
some estimates on the first day of invasion were 250,000 americans dead and millions of japanese
thousands of leaflets were dropped warning the japanese of the atomic bomb and their was till no surrender.
hiroshima, no surrender.
nagasaki...finally

and then russia invaded manchuria.

I do agree that the u.s. dropped the bomb to show the ussr that we had the world's most powerful weapon but it did save millions of lives and sped up the war.  

And I have seen others claim that there is evidence to suggest that Japan was about to surrender (I also think that you seem to have been researching some pretty Americanized material, without much perspective from the other side of the story - your list reads a little like American military propaganda than it does true, objective research results, and I am fully aware of the Japanese tactics and mindset during that war, but there is way more to it than that. None of it is as black and white as you just stated). I would have to do my own thorough research to make up my mind or see real evidence on paper to prove it one way or the other ... and chances are I will never get around to that. From what I have learned, though, I think Japan would have surrendered without the bombing of Nagasaki, at least quickly enough for that second bomb to not be worth it in the moral/amount of suffering averted sense. Truman was just impatient about it. Yes, that's just an opinion.

my2hands

Didn't you say a little while ago FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming? Now you're using Truman's line about being shot in the back? 

mcgruff10

my2hands said:

Didn't you say a little while ago FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming? Now you're using Truman's line about being shot in the back? 

Absolutely.  Their his own words as the event unfolded. 
And I still do believe that fdr knew pearl
harbor was going to happen in some capacity. 

tbergs

This is what I was thinking of.

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

I swear there's something else out there I read about it a while back but I can't find it right now

my2hands

So did we get shot in the back or know it was coming?

We both know the truth

mcgruff10

tbergs said:

This is what I was thinking of.

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/

I swear there's something else out there I read about it a while back but I can't find it right now

I don't buy for a second that the Japanese were about surrender. Regardless,  good article. 

mcgruff10

my2hands said:

So did we get shot in the back or know it was coming?

We both know the truth

A little of both. Just because we knew in some capacity that they were going to be attacked doesn't mean we weren't stabbed in the back. 

my2hands

The "never surrender" theory...

Considering a large percentage of Japanese cities had been fire bombed and laid to waste by General "Bombs Away" Lemay... also facing an impending invasion by Russia... clearly defeated... if they would never surrender... and were not close to surrender as the claim goes... then why surrender after the atomic attacks? Japan and it's mostly wood built cities were already decimated

Both cities were purposely saved by the US as potential targets... they researched and decided these 2 cities would best hilight the destructive power of the world's new Super weapon... so they left them untouched... its not like they woke up one day and just decided to use them... if you think we weren't going to use those bombs before the end of the war, you are mistaken my friend... that would have been a sorely missed opportunity in some powerful circles... they were used to assert global geo-political military dominance entering the post war era... and from what i can tell, looking at the modern day global hegemony we are, the plan worked quite well... plain and simple my brother

mcgruff10

my2hands said:

The "never surrender" theory...

Considering a large percentage of Japanese cities had been fire bombed and laid to waste by General "Bombs Away" Lemay... also facing an impending invasion by Russia... clearly defeated... if they would never surrender... and were not close to surrender as the claim goes... then why surrender after the atomic attacks? Japan and it's mostly wood built cities were already decimated

Both cities were purposely saved by the US as potential targets... they researched and decided these 2 cities would best hilight the destructive power of the world's new Super weapon... so they left them untouched... its not like they woke up one day and just decided to use them... if you think we weren't going to use those bombs before the end of the war, you are mistaken my friend... that would have been a sorely missed opportunity in some powerful circles... they were used to assert global geo-political military dominance entering the post war era... and from what i can tell, looking at the modern day global hegemony we are, the plan worked quite well... plain and simple my brother

Totally agree with the last part. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were saved?  Firebombing started before atomic bombs were even 100% proven...hell we weren't even sure if they were gonna work as we dropped them lol. Nagasaki wasn't even the primary target. Hell they missed their target by a mile. 
they surrendered after Nagasaki because the council begged the empire....the public could not comprehend a third atomic bomb being used on the homeland.  

my2hands

https://youtu.be/RceLAhPOS9Q

Interesting words coming from McNamara... "we acted as war criminals"

my2hands

https://youtu.be/ZdAvWfVD5Fk

Interesting quick blurb about the firebombing of Tokyo and Japan

my2hands

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/429433621/why-did-the-u-s-choose-hiroshima

mcgruff10

my2hands said:

http://www.npr.org/2015/08/06/429433621/why-did-the-u-s-choose-hiroshima

Cool article bud.  I ll check out this videos tomorrow. 

my2hands

In that NPR link... click the declassified minutes of the meetings determining potential targets for the bomb... check out page 3, bullet 1

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command list. Consideration should be given to this city"

These guys weren't Eddie Murphy in Coming To America randomly pointing to a spot on the map... it was planned and vetted for maximum shock & awe... these cities were saved as preffered targets to ensure maximum damage and effect.... and they were always going to be used as soon as they were ready... 

Feel free to invite me to that history class so I can give those kids something to chew on

guypjfreak

As bad as the bombs were it saved thousands of American soldiers lives.. Maybe even one of yours or your partner or friends.. 

PJ_Soul

guypjfreak said:

As bad as the bombs were it saved thousands of American soldiers lives.. Maybe even one of yours or your partner or friends.. 

Yeah.... and ended hundreds of thousands of other lives and ruined many more..... I don't think the lives of the Japanese civilians are worth less than the lives of American soldiers (or Canadians). I am only interested in which decision would have killed the fewest people or prevented the most suffering. I am not necessarily convinced that the nukes win by that measure. Also, I can't help wondering what the world would be like if the nukes had never been used in the political sense. That bombing changed the course of history in so many ways.... possibly for the better. Possibly not. I do know that Einstein and many scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project 100% regretted their roles in the advent of nuclear weapons, no matter how the war against Japan might have gone without them.

mcgruff10

Allie, the atomic bomb saved millions of lives. Those who disagree must study how the Japanese fought. 

PJ_Soul

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, the atomic bomb saved millions of lives. Those who disagree must study how the Japanese fought. 

Dude, I feel that your information is coming only from the American perspective. You are kind of towing the party line here. Also, there is absolutely NO way to know if it saved millions of lives either way, FYI. I have a major problem with you acting like that is a fact and not only a possibility or an opinion, especially if all you're basing it on is the very black and white American interpretation of how the Japanese fought and what they would have done if the war kept going. I say this as one who is fully aware of what you are talking about in this context. I know the principles that the Japanese held when it came to war, and that war in particular. I also am fully aware of the atrocities the Japanese committed in China. But your ideas still seem very one-sided and discount the fact that the Japanese are complicated human beings who also swam through politics, fears, doubts, scandals, compromise, just like Americans. They were not actually singular-minded robots with a singular purpose, as the American military wanted everyone to believe during that war in order to build as much fear as possible, and then forever after in order to make sure their nuclear attack is viewed as completely justified ... Not that I really blame you for your ideas on this. The American education system feeds that information to Americans the second it starts teaching WWII history to them. I am not saying it's all wrong, but I am saying that there is a whole other side to this story, and you don't seem to have been told that one.

mcgruff10

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

Allie, the atomic bomb saved millions of lives. Those who disagree must study how the Japanese fought. 

Dude, I feel that your information is coming only from the American perspective. You are kind of towing the party line here. Also, there is absolutely NO way to know if it saved millions of lives either way, FYI. I have a major problem with you acting like that is a fact and not only a possibility or an opinion, especially if all you're basing it on is the very black and white American interpretation of how the Japanese fought and what they would have done if the war kept going. I say this as one who is fully aware of what you are talking about in this context. I know the principles that the Japanese held when it came to war, and that war in particular. I also am fully aware of the atrocities the Japanese committed in China. But your ideas still seem very one-sided and discount the fact that the Japanese are complicated human beings who also swam through politics, fears, doubts, scandals, compromise, just like Americans. They were not actually singular-minded robots with a singular purpose, as the American military wanted everyone to believe during that war in order to build as much fear as possible, and then forever after in order to make sure their nuclear attack is viewed as completely justified ... Not that I really blame you for your ideas on this. The American education system feeds that information to Americans the second it starts teaching WWII history to them. I am not saying it's all wrong, but I am saying that there is a whole other side to this story, and you don't seem to have been told that one.

oh geez.....ok.  blame it on the american education system lol.  i'm done here.  good luck in your discussion.