The U.S. use of atomic bombs on Japan actually had the support of the other Allied nations, and the goal was pretty specific ... end the war without the need for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would have resulted in far more Japanese (and Allied) deaths than dropping those two bombs did. To me, this usage, while certainly open to criticism, has no real bearing on the likelihood that the U.S. or Israel would use nukes today.
I think its widely recognized now that the Japanese had every intention of surrendering and were actively trying to surrender before the bomb was dropped. I believe Eisenhower acknowledges this, but the bomb was dropped to send a message to Russia and had nothing to do with sparing the lives of a ground invasion. Especially after Hiroshima, Nagasaki was completely unnecessary. It was a display of aggression towards Russia and a way to flex America's military might.
The U.S. use of atomic bombs on Japan actually had the support of the other Allied nations, and the goal was pretty specific ... end the war without the need for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese mainland, which would have resulted in far more Japanese (and Allied) deaths than dropping those two bombs did. To me, this usage, while certainly open to criticism, has no real bearing on the likelihood that the U.S. or Israel would use nukes today.
Another acknowledged motive behind the bombing was to show the world that we had it.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
Another acknowledged motive behind the bombing was to show the world that we had it.
And the second was used to show that they had more than one and could make more. It had nothing to do with the Japanese and everything to do with the Russians.
And the second was used to show that they had more than one and could make more. It had nothing to do with the Japanese and everything to do with the Russians.
Yeah, basically us showing our ass before the Cold War started. Or starting the Cold War, depending on how you look at it.
I'm sure the people of Hiroshima & Nagasaki are comforted to know that it wasn't really personal.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
And the second was used to show that they had more than one and could make more. It had nothing to do with the Japanese and everything to do with the Russians.
There was little indication that the Japanese were going to surrender, at least, not the military commanders nor most of the civilian populace. Only government officials had hinted at the possibility. Its not as cut and dried as your statement "widely acknowledged" makes it out to be.
That being said, your point about showing the Soviets is probably accurate as well. Still has no bearing on my point about the likelihood that the U.S. poses a nuclear threat in this day and age.
I'm sure the people of Hiroshima & Nagasaki are comforted to know that it wasn't really personal.
I wonder how the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt about the Nanking rapes and massacre, or how they felt about Allied POWs tortured in prison camps, or how they felt about conquering more land mass than the Germans did. Let's not pretend that World War II only had one victim, here.
And the second was used to show that they had more than one and could make more. It had nothing to do with the Japanese and everything to do with the Russians.
LOL, or maybe it could be that after 3 days they didn't surrender?!?!?! Duh!
So you are saying that we would have dropped the second one even if they did surrender to show we had more than one and could make more? Does the fact that the war was still going on not have anything to do with the decision to drop the second bomb?
I wonder how the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt about the Nanking rapes and massacre, or how they felt about Allied POWs tortured in prison camps, or how they felt about conquering more land mass than the Germans did. Let's not pretend that World War II only had one victim, here.
That's not what I was doing. Anyway, I doubt that the Japanese invasion of Nanking province was really a motivating factor in the decision to bomb.
"Of course it hurts. You're getting fucked by an elephant."
There was little indication that the Japanese were going to surrender, at least, not the military commanders nor most of the civilian populace. Only government officials had hinted at the possibility. Its not as cut and dried as your statement "widely acknowledged" makes it out to be.
That being said, your point about showing the Soviets is probably accurate as well. Still has no bearing on my point about the likelihood that the U.S. poses a nuclear threat in this day and age.
Eisenhower was very clear about his opposition to the bombing reiterating that Japan was defeated.
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[47] Major General Curtis LeMay,[48] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[49] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[50]
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[50]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[51]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[51]
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
""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."
they don't need to use it again. they have other methods for getting what they want. they will squeeze you dry and then have you thanking them for the privilege of you being fucked up the arse.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
So apparently its ok for Israel to go all out with its nuclear program but when Iran does it is an open act of hostility. ok.
So much for a safer world I suppose.
GET ON THE RIGHT BUS HERE. ISRAEL, LIKE BRITAIN AND FRANCE, HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS. AT LEAST ISRAEL AND BRITAIN ARE OUR FRIENDS AND WE NEED NOT WORRY ABOUT THEM BEING A THREAT TO US. SO YES, IT IS JUST AS OK FOR ISRAEL TO HAVE NUKES AS IT IS FOR BRITIAN. WHY? BECAUSE THIS IS POLITICS AND WAR, NOT A DEBATING SOCIETY. UNLESS YOU HAVE BEEN ASLEEP FOR THE LAST 27 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN THE GREAT SATAN TO IRAN. THEY TOO HAVE SUBMARINES. WE DONT EVEN HAVE DIMPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH IRAN. WHY? THEY ARE AN ENEMY NATION. THIS IS ABOUT PROTECTING OUR NATION. IF YOURE NOT AMERICAN, THEN THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO YOU. BUT IF YOU ARE EUROPEAN YOUR INTEREST SHOULD ALSO BE NOT TO ALLOW THE ISLAMIC BOMB.
PERHAPS THE GERMANS ARE A BIT NERVOUS BECAUSE I THINK IN THE BACK OF THEIR MINDS THAT THEIR MAY BE SOME JEWISH PAYBACK SOME DAY.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
please provide some information on Ahmadinejad saying that he want's to nuke israel.
ITS CALLED A NEWSPAPER.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
"The occupation regime of qods (jerusalem, or Israel) must be wpied off from the map of the world, and with the help of the almighty, we shall soon experience a world without America and Zionism." "to those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible." - Irans President Ahmadinejad
Safa Haeri, "Iran on Course for a Showdown," Asia Times Online, October 28,2005
It has also been reported by the Washington times and Aljazeera that Ahmadinejad was identified as one of the 1979 US Embassy captors.
we're not talking about a man with good ambitions, Ahmadinejad is a major threat to the US and Israel.
PLEASE STOP CONFUSING PEOPLE WITH THE FACTS ALREADY...
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Similarly, though, what good is Iran's posturing going to do? What, you think they are simply sticking up for Palestinians? That's just as bad as arguing that the U.S. is simply looking out for the best interests of Iraqis by building a democracy over there. Iran wants to become the top regional power in the Middle East. To do so, they need some nukes to back up the bluster. Palestine is just their most recent excuse. Historically, Persians and Arabs loathe one another. Only now, Iran needs some kind of flashpoint issue in order to flex its muscle. Supplying terrorists in Lebanon with weapons, giving lip service to the Palestinian "cause" ... It is all politics. I am not sure why it is OK to be completely cynical about American motives but actually buy into Iran's assertion that it is some kind of altruistic state. Right ... So altruistic that they think the Nazis were on the right track.
THIS IS AN INFORMED VIEW
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Anybody else find it kind of ironic that the Germans are more or less giving Israel a weapon that could lead to the destruction of another race of people. Fucking funny shit that this world can produce.
TWO NUCLEAR SUBS CAN HARDLY KILL A BILLION MUSLIMS. YOU MUST HAVE THE JEWS CONFUSED WITH SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A HISTORY OF COMMITTING GENOCIDAL MURDER. THAT WOULD BE LARGELY CHRISTIAN EUROPEANS. THE CRUSADES, INQUISITION, HOLOCAUSTS OF INDIGIGENOUS PEOPLES ALL OVER THE WORLD, AND THE ULTIMATE MASSACRE IN THE 1940'S. THESE WERE ACTS OF CHRISTIANS, NOT JEWS. NOT EVEN THE MUSLIMS HAVE AS UGLY OF A HISTORY OF MURDER AS CHRISTIAN EUROPEANS SO YOU MUST BE PROJECTING,
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
No bro, don't mix it up, we are talking about countries that already have nukes and are aggressive and threaten other countries, I simply pointed out that america has used them, what right to do they have lecturing Iran on nukes? also Israel has made it's own bed, Israeli nukes won't stop countries from hating israel, israel stopping it's aggression towards the palestinians may.
Israel can buy every weapon in the world, what good will it do? not much really.
MOST OF US HERE ARE AMERICANS AND I CAN PRETTY MUCH ASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU TOOK A POLL OF WHO WAS MORE LIKELY TO ALLOW A NUCLEAR WEAPON TO BE USED IN AN AMERICAN CITY IT WOULD BE IRAN BY LIKE 99 TO 1. ITS COMMON SENSE.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Intersting point of view, given Israel's history of invasion and occupation of Lebanon..while Iran hasn't done much since it freed itself from US hegemony. Seems Israel is the terror state, if you look at facts and numbers and all those annoying little details.
SO IT WASNT AN IRANIAN ARMED HIZBOLLAH THAT KILLED 230 AMERICAN MARINES IN BEIRUT? HMMM. NO THEY ARE A VERY PASSIVE VICTIM
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
There is no such thing as abstract hypocrisy when it is a matter of nuclear war. It just seems irresponsible for you to promote the idea that Iran has as much right to expand their nuclear program as Israel. I'll give you six good reasons (not my own) why Iran should not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, and why it is okay for Israel to have them.
First, the logic of "They did it, so why can't I?" would lead to a nuclearized globe in which our daily multifarious wars, from Darfur to the Middle East, would all assume the potential to go nuclear. In contrast, the fewer the nuclear players, the more likely deterrence can play some role.
Second, it is a fact that full-fledged democracies are less likely to attack one another. Consensual governments are not so ready to fight like kind. In contemporary terms that means that there is no chance whatsoever that an anti-American France and an increasingly anti-French America would, as nuclear democracies, attack each other. Russia, following the fall of Communism, and its partial evolution to democracy, poses less threat to the United States than when it was a totalitarian state.
For example, It would be regrettable should Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, or Germany go nuclear — but not the catastrophe of a nuclear Pakistan that, with impunity de facto, offers sanctuary to bin Laden and the planners of 9/11. The former governments operate under a free press, open elections, and free speech, and thus their war-making is subject to a series of checks and balances. Pakistan is a strongman's heartbeat away from an Islamic theocracy. And while India has volatile relations with its Islamic neighbor, the world is not nearly as worried about its arsenal as it is about autocratic Pakistan's.
Third, there are a number of rogue regimes that belong in a special category: North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba, unfree states whose leaders have sought global attention and stature through sponsoring insurrection and terrorism beyond their borders. If it is scary that Russia, China, and Pakistan are now nuclear, it is terrifying that Kim Jong Il has the bomb, or that President Ahmadinejad might. When such renegade regimes go nuclear they gain the added lunatic edge: "We are either crazy or have nothing to lose or both — but you aren't." In nuclear poker, the appearance of derangement is an apparent advantage.
Fourth, there are all sorts of scary combinations — petrodollars, nukes, terrorism, and fanaticism. But Iran is a uniquely fivefold danger. It has enough cash to buy influence and exemption; nuclear weapons to threaten civilization; oil reserves to blackmail a petroleum hungry world; terrorists to either find sanctuary under a nuclear umbrella or to be armed with dirty bombs.
Fifth, any country that seeks "peaceful" nuclear power and is completely self-sufficient in energy production is de facto suspect. Iran has enough natural gas to meet its clean electrical generation needs for centuries. The only possible rationale for its multi-billion-dollar program of building nuclear reactors, and spending billions more to hide and decentralize them, is to obtain weapons, and thus to gain clout and attention in a manner that otherwise is not warranted by either Iranian conventional forces, cultural influence, or economic achievement.
Sixth, the West is right to take on a certain responsibility to discourage nuclear proliferation. The technology for such weapons grew entirely out of Western science and technology. In fact, the story of nuclear proliferation is exclusively one of espionage, stealthy commerce, or American and European-trained native engineers using their foreign-acquired expertise. Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran have no ability themselves to create such weapons, in the same manner that Russia, China, and India learned or stole a craft established only from the knowledge of European-American physics and industrial engineering. Any country that cannot itself create such weapons is probably not going to ensure the necessary protocols to guard against their misuse or theft.
SADLY IT WONT PERSUADE THE IRANOPHILES ON THIS BOARD
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
SO IT WASNT AN IRANIAN ARMED HIZBOLLAH THAT KILLED 230 AMERICAN MARINES IN BEIRUT? HMMM. NO THEY ARE A VERY PASSIVE VICTIM
What? Type louder...
Passive? Why were the marines in Beruit again? How long has the US given ISrael some of the most advanced weaponry in the world? Just curious...seems like more important questions.
When I mentioned facts and numbers and all of those annoying things i was referring to the picture painted when they are presented.
For every 10 Lebaneses civilians killed 1 Israeli civilian is killed. For every 5 Palestinian children murdered, 1 Israeli chold loses his/her life.
The facts show that Israel is the more agressive force in the region, more so than all of its neighbors and all the "terrorists" groups combined.
It shouldn't be me defending Hizbollah at this point...you should be defending US and Israeli agression, a far more serious and deadly crime. If not, as Galloway puts it, if you realize it or not, you think Israeli blood is more valueable than that of the arabs.
Intersting point of view, given Israel's history of invasion and occupation of Lebanon..while Iran hasn't done much since it freed itself from US hegemony. Seems Israel is the terror state, if you look at facts and numbers and all those annoying little details.
I guess that whole Iran Iraq war falls into your category of not much>
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Passive? Why were the marines in Beruit again? How long has the US given ISrael some of the most advanced weaponry in the world? Just curious...seems like more important questions.
When I mentioned facts and numbers and all of those annoying things i was referring to the picture painted when they are presented.
For every 10 Lebaneses civilians killed 1 Israeli civilian is killed. For every 5 Palestinian children murdered, 1 Israeli chold loses his/her life.
The facts show that Israel is the more agressive force in the region, more so than all of its neighbors and all the "terrorists" groups combined.
It shouldn't be me defending Hizbollah at this point...you should be defending US and Israeli agression, a far more serious and deadly crime. If not, as Galloway puts it, if you realize it or not, you think Israeli blood is more valueable than that of the arabs.
If 6 million of your people, whoever they may be, were burned in ovens you would have some understanding of the Israeli mindset. It is the fight for the survival of a race that so many over history have tried to erase. Forgive the jews for trying to protect themselves from yet another monster who uses words like wipe out and annihilate and gives arms to an illegitimate militia whose main purpose it is to kill Jews. If you hate jews, just say it. Dont beat around ther bush
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
If 6 million of your people, whoever they may be, were burned in ovens you would have some understanding of the Israeli mindset. It is the fight for the survival of a race that so many over history have tried to erase. Forgive the jews for trying to protect themselves from yet another monster who uses words like wipe out and annihilate and gives arms to an illegitimate militia whose main purpose it is to kill Jews. If you hate jews, just say it. Dont beat around ther bush
what happened to the jewish people in germany is a crime, very sad and very terrible, it showed the dark side of mankind, but how does that give other jewish people the right to kick aother people out of their homes and take it over? how does that give them the right to do hurt,kill and destroy another group of people?
One would figure that this so called "israeli midset" would give them more understanding.
The oppressed are now the oppressors.
Take islam, judiaism and whatever else out of the picture and what are you still left with? american made missles landing on children, for what? this "survival" you speak of?
what happened to the jewish people in germany is a crime, very sad and very terrible, it showed the dark side of mankind, but how does that give other jewish people the right to kick aother people out of their homes and take it over? how does that give them the right to do hurt,kill and destroy another group of people?
One would figure that this so called "israeli midset" would give them more understanding.
The oppressed are now the oppressors.
Take islam, judiaism and whatever else out of the picture and what are you still left with? american made missles landing on children, for what? this "survival" you speak of?
I truly believe that israel never deliberately targets civillians. That is in direct contrast to Hizbollah, Hamas, and other state based actors. If I have to support that with facts for you, then your just in abject denial.
That is not to say I, or any other person who supports Israel, believes everything they do is ok. In this instance I do not find a problem with removing an independent illegal militia who has been engaged in lauching civillian targeting missiles at areas of Israel that are not disputed area.
First and foremost, all of those who hide behind the U.N. every time an Israeli missile kills a civillian conveniently forget the resoluations passed and ignored by Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Lebanon was ordered to remove militias from the border and for 6 years they thumbed their nose at the U.N. Since we all know the U.N. under Mr. Annan wont ever act until things are way out of hand and past the point of negotation. Thats what happens when you do not enforce your resolutions and it will continue.
Let's wait and see what Mr. Annan and company do when Iran violates the next Security Council resolution...THe Israeli's waited 6 years for Lebanon to disarm Hizbollah and all they did was facilitate the transfer of thousands of missiles to the Israeli border...This is fact, not debate.
Yes it sucks civillians were killed but place blame where it properly belongs. Lebanon bears a great amount of the burden as does the U.N. Israel is guilty of the same thing as the United States in this case. They had the moral authority and then made mistakes based on bad intelligence and innocent people got killed. Now they lost the high ground.
But be fair, groups like Hizbollah and Hamas just do not belong. As long as one non-state "government" is allowed to conduct these kinds of operations against States, and no one acts, other groups are sure to follow since the International community of States will not stop it.
Recall, we lost 3500 innocent people to a band of non-state fundamentalists with the will to kill and die in the process. I see no difference with Hizbollah.
Their aim is to destroy Israel and until that aim is renounced Israel has the same right to defense as we did in Afgahnistan.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
The oppressed are now the oppressors. Wish it were not so.
quote]
And a sad fact of History. The Jews want to live in Peace. No one will let them.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Eisenhower was very clear about his opposition to the bombing reiterating that Japan was defeated.
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[47] Major General Curtis LeMay,[48] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[49] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[50]
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[50]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[51]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[51]
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
""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."
There is just no way any of that is entriely accurate. You site to footnotes but not to sources as to where they came from. I have read numerous scholarly articles and books that discuss the reasoning of the use of the Atomic Bomb in Japan. Some of your post seemed plausible until you get to the part about Curtis LeMay. There is no way Curtis LeMay would eve have opposed letting the US Air Force win the war. This would never have happened.
It is also unlikely that most of America's military leaders knew of the existence of the bomb until immediately before or after its use. Speculating that Japan would have surrendered is just that...and it is not supported by fact. American political leaders sought Japan's surrender and the Emperor was convinced by Japaneese militarists to fight to the death.
Hirohito did not even surrender after Hiroshima and that is why a 2nd bomb was dropped. Even then, when the Emperor had decided to surrender after Nagasaki there was a failed coup by Militarists. These are facts, not speculation.
Any American grunt who would have had to invade the Japaneese home islands would agree that the use of the bomb saved their lives. This was war. Horrific war. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback but the reality is that it saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of more lives.
______________
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
There is just no way any of that is entriely accurate. You site to footnotes but not to sources as to where they came from. I have read numerous scholarly articles and books that discuss the reasoning of the use of the Atomic Bomb in Japan. Some of your post seemed plausible until you get to the part about Curtis LeMay. There is no way Curtis LeMay would eve have opposed letting the US Air Force win the war. This would never have happened.
It is also unlikely that most of America's military leaders knew of the existence of the bomb until immediately before or after its use. Speculating that Japan would have surrendered is just that...and it is not supported by fact. American political leaders sought Japan's surrender and the Emperor was convinced by Japaneese militarists to fight to the death.
Hirohito did not even surrender after Hiroshima and that is why a 2nd bomb was dropped. Even then, when the Emperor had decided to surrender after Nagasaki there was a failed coup by Militarists. These are facts, not speculation.
Any American grunt who would have had to invade the Japaneese home islands would agree that the use of the bomb saved their lives. This was war. Horrific war. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback but the reality is that it saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of more lives.
sorry to hijack the thread for a minute..
according to the Strategic Bombing Survey, conducted by the United States Gov't,
"Based on a detailed investigation of all facts and supported by the testimony of 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, amd even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
So I guess the question is, did US leaders know this at the time? They certainly know now that the nuclear bombs were unnecesary and that hundreds of thousands of innocent people did not need to be vaporized, but did they know at the time?
Most people think so. The Japanese code had been broken and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known that Japan had sent messengers to Moscow to negotiate the terms of surrender. The Emperor himself had suggested surrender.
July 1945, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his Ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace..." This message was relayed to the president, but obviously his plans to drop the atomic bombs were not affected.
Dropping the atomic bombs was not so much the last act of WW II as it was the first act of the cold war. It sent a message to Russia-the US has nukes and is not afraid to use them.
Comments
I read it over again. I still don't buy it.
I'm not arguing that Iran should have the bomb, I simply don't buy the rationalizations that justify Israel's developing nuclear weapons.
Another acknowledged motive behind the bombing was to show the world that we had it.
and had no problems with it being used, coooooold blooooded.
Yeah, basically us showing our ass before the Cold War started. Or starting the Cold War, depending on how you look at it.
I'm sure the people of Hiroshima & Nagasaki are comforted to know that it wasn't really personal.
There was little indication that the Japanese were going to surrender, at least, not the military commanders nor most of the civilian populace. Only government officials had hinted at the possibility. Its not as cut and dried as your statement "widely acknowledged" makes it out to be.
That being said, your point about showing the Soviets is probably accurate as well. Still has no bearing on my point about the likelihood that the U.S. poses a nuclear threat in this day and age.
I wonder how the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki felt about the Nanking rapes and massacre, or how they felt about Allied POWs tortured in prison camps, or how they felt about conquering more land mass than the Germans did. Let's not pretend that World War II only had one victim, here.
LOL, or maybe it could be that after 3 days they didn't surrender?!?!?! Duh!
So you are saying that we would have dropped the second one even if they did surrender to show we had more than one and could make more? Does the fact that the war was still going on not have anything to do with the decision to drop the second bomb?
That's not what I was doing. Anyway, I doubt that the Japanese invasion of Nanking province was really a motivating factor in the decision to bomb.
Eisenhower was very clear about his opposition to the bombing reiterating that Japan was defeated.
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), and Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[47] Major General Curtis LeMay,[48] and Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[49] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[50]
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[50]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[51]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[51]
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
""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."
It's such a scary thought.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
PERHAPS THE GERMANS ARE A BIT NERVOUS BECAUSE I THINK IN THE BACK OF THEIR MINDS THAT THEIR MAY BE SOME JEWISH PAYBACK SOME DAY.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
SADLY IT WONT PERSUADE THE IRANOPHILES ON THIS BOARD
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
What? Type louder...
Passive? Why were the marines in Beruit again? How long has the US given ISrael some of the most advanced weaponry in the world? Just curious...seems like more important questions.
When I mentioned facts and numbers and all of those annoying things i was referring to the picture painted when they are presented.
For every 10 Lebaneses civilians killed 1 Israeli civilian is killed. For every 5 Palestinian children murdered, 1 Israeli chold loses his/her life.
The facts show that Israel is the more agressive force in the region, more so than all of its neighbors and all the "terrorists" groups combined.
It shouldn't be me defending Hizbollah at this point...you should be defending US and Israeli agression, a far more serious and deadly crime. If not, as Galloway puts it, if you realize it or not, you think Israeli blood is more valueable than that of the arabs.
Not supporting a US invasion of Iran does not equate to support for Iran, just to clarify.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
If 6 million of your people, whoever they may be, were burned in ovens you would have some understanding of the Israeli mindset. It is the fight for the survival of a race that so many over history have tried to erase. Forgive the jews for trying to protect themselves from yet another monster who uses words like wipe out and annihilate and gives arms to an illegitimate militia whose main purpose it is to kill Jews. If you hate jews, just say it. Dont beat around ther bush
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
what happened to the jewish people in germany is a crime, very sad and very terrible, it showed the dark side of mankind, but how does that give other jewish people the right to kick aother people out of their homes and take it over? how does that give them the right to do hurt,kill and destroy another group of people?
One would figure that this so called "israeli midset" would give them more understanding.
The oppressed are now the oppressors.
Take islam, judiaism and whatever else out of the picture and what are you still left with? american made missles landing on children, for what? this "survival" you speak of?
That is not to say I, or any other person who supports Israel, believes everything they do is ok. In this instance I do not find a problem with removing an independent illegal militia who has been engaged in lauching civillian targeting missiles at areas of Israel that are not disputed area.
First and foremost, all of those who hide behind the U.N. every time an Israeli missile kills a civillian conveniently forget the resoluations passed and ignored by Lebanon, Syria, and Iran. Lebanon was ordered to remove militias from the border and for 6 years they thumbed their nose at the U.N. Since we all know the U.N. under Mr. Annan wont ever act until things are way out of hand and past the point of negotation. Thats what happens when you do not enforce your resolutions and it will continue.
Let's wait and see what Mr. Annan and company do when Iran violates the next Security Council resolution...THe Israeli's waited 6 years for Lebanon to disarm Hizbollah and all they did was facilitate the transfer of thousands of missiles to the Israeli border...This is fact, not debate.
Yes it sucks civillians were killed but place blame where it properly belongs. Lebanon bears a great amount of the burden as does the U.N. Israel is guilty of the same thing as the United States in this case. They had the moral authority and then made mistakes based on bad intelligence and innocent people got killed. Now they lost the high ground.
But be fair, groups like Hizbollah and Hamas just do not belong. As long as one non-state "government" is allowed to conduct these kinds of operations against States, and no one acts, other groups are sure to follow since the International community of States will not stop it.
Recall, we lost 3500 innocent people to a band of non-state fundamentalists with the will to kill and die in the process. I see no difference with Hizbollah.
Their aim is to destroy Israel and until that aim is renounced Israel has the same right to defense as we did in Afgahnistan.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
There is just no way any of that is entriely accurate. You site to footnotes but not to sources as to where they came from. I have read numerous scholarly articles and books that discuss the reasoning of the use of the Atomic Bomb in Japan. Some of your post seemed plausible until you get to the part about Curtis LeMay. There is no way Curtis LeMay would eve have opposed letting the US Air Force win the war. This would never have happened.
It is also unlikely that most of America's military leaders knew of the existence of the bomb until immediately before or after its use. Speculating that Japan would have surrendered is just that...and it is not supported by fact. American political leaders sought Japan's surrender and the Emperor was convinced by Japaneese militarists to fight to the death.
Hirohito did not even surrender after Hiroshima and that is why a 2nd bomb was dropped. Even then, when the Emperor had decided to surrender after Nagasaki there was a failed coup by Militarists. These are facts, not speculation.
Any American grunt who would have had to invade the Japaneese home islands would agree that the use of the bomb saved their lives. This was war. Horrific war. It is easy to Monday morning quarterback but the reality is that it saved hundreds of thousands if not millions of more lives.
Irvine 1992, Las Vegas 1993, Mountain View 1994, San Diego 1995, Los Angeles 1996, Los Angeles 1998, Moutain View 1999, San Bernadino 2000, Los Angeles 2000, Irvine 2003, Irvine 2003, Moutain View 2003, Santa Barbara 2003, San Diego 2006, Los Angeles 2006, Santa Barbara 2006
sorry to hijack the thread for a minute..
according to the Strategic Bombing Survey, conducted by the United States Gov't,
"Based on a detailed investigation of all facts and supported by the testimony of 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, amd even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
So I guess the question is, did US leaders know this at the time? They certainly know now that the nuclear bombs were unnecesary and that hundreds of thousands of innocent people did not need to be vaporized, but did they know at the time?
Most people think so. The Japanese code had been broken and Japan's messages were being intercepted. It was known that Japan had sent messengers to Moscow to negotiate the terms of surrender. The Emperor himself had suggested surrender.
July 1945, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his Ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace..." This message was relayed to the president, but obviously his plans to drop the atomic bombs were not affected.
Dropping the atomic bombs was not so much the last act of WW II as it was the first act of the cold war. It sent a message to Russia-the US has nukes and is not afraid to use them.