At Hiroshima’s 70th Anniversary, Japan Again Mourns Dawn of Atomic Age

[aujeff11 6,243]

AUJeff11, It seems the further we get from an event the more we try to revise the history of it. The samurai culture had been deeply ingrained into the Japanese military and were quite willing to fight to the death. As the Japanese emperor prepared to surrender, Japanese military leaders tried to assassinate the emperor and stop the surrender.

Millions of lives were saved by the bomb and speculation on events that might have prevented dropping the bomb are just that. History is history and trying to reinterpret it doesn't change it.

If progressive libs are not allowed to re-write history , how are they to make it through the day???

Bleeding hearts aren't uniquely liberal.

Bleeding hearts?

Right. It's funny watching all of the Monday morning QB's seventy years later cry tears for a nation which committed gross atrocities and continued to do so right up until the end.

I suppose you think I am revisionist too? I don't understand why you used the phrase Monday morning QBs either?

[AUDub 11,131]

AUJeff11, It seems the further we get from an event the more we try to revise the history of it. The samurai culture had been deeply ingrained into the Japanese military and were quite willing to fight to the death. As the Japanese emperor prepared to surrender, Japanese military leaders tried to assassinate the emperor and stop the surrender.

Millions of lives were saved by the bomb and speculation on events that might have prevented dropping the bomb are just that. History is history and trying to reinterpret it doesn't change it.

If progressive libs are not allowed to re-write history , how are they to make it through the day???

Bleeding hearts aren't uniquely liberal.

Bleeding hearts?

Right. It's funny watching all of the Monday morning QB's seventy years later cry tears for a nation which committed gross atrocities and continued to do so right up until the end.

I suppose you think I am revisionist too? I don't understand why you used the phrase Monday morning QBs either?

I don't think you're a revisionist. I think your second guessing of Truman's decision (Monday morning quarterbacking) displays some ignorance of the period, though.

[aujeff11 6,243]

AUJeff11, It seems the further we get from an event the more we try to revise the history of it. The samurai culture had been deeply ingrained into the Japanese military and were quite willing to fight to the death. As the Japanese emperor prepared to surrender, Japanese military leaders tried to assassinate the emperor and stop the surrender.

Millions of lives were saved by the bomb and speculation on events that might have prevented dropping the bomb are just that. History is history and trying to reinterpret it doesn't change it.

If progressive libs are not allowed to re-write history , how are they to make it through the day???

Bleeding hearts aren't uniquely liberal.

Bleeding hearts?

Right. It's funny watching all of the Monday morning QB's seventy years later cry tears for a nation which committed gross atrocities and continued to do so right up until the end.

I suppose you think I am revisionist too? I don't understand why you used the phrase Monday morning QBs either?

I don't think you're a revisionist. I think your second guessing of Truman's decision (Monday morning quarterbacking) displays some ignorance of the period, though.

I'm not second guessing anything because I understand the magnitude of Truman's decision. By using the Monday morning qb phrase, you are pretty much admitting that I'm criticizing a bad decision through hindsight. The funny thing is that I wouldn't agree even then with the use of weapons that couldn't discriminate between wartime combatants and women and children. So I'm not even using hindsight to strengthen my argument. I wasn't alive during My Lai either but you better believe Im a pro bowl Monday Morning QB.

[AUDub 11,131]

I'm not second guessing anything because I understand the magnitude of Truman's decision.

Oh? Have you moderated your views? You flat out said that you did not believe the use of the bomb was justifiable in our prior discussion back in April.

By using the Monday morning qb phrase, you are pretty much admitting that I'm criticizing a bad decision through hindsight.

Not necessarily. A Monday morning QB is one that simply who criticizes or passes judgment with the benefit of hindsight, even if the decision was correct.

The funny thing is that I wouldn't agree even then with the use of weapons that couldn't discriminate between wartime combatants and women and children. So I'm not even using hindsight to strengthen my argument.

Easy to say that from our comfy armchairs. No weapon discriminates. Do you know the civilian cost resulting from conventional weapons on during our air raids?

What course of action would you have taken?

I wasn't alive during My Lai either but you better believe Im a pro bowl Monday Morning QB.

Uh, ok.

[aujeff11 6,243]

I'm not second guessing anything because I understand the magnitude of Truman's decision.

Oh? Have you moderated your views? You flat out said that you did not believe the use of the bomb was justifiable in our prior discussion back in April.

By using the Monday morning qb phrase, you are pretty much admitting that I'm criticizing a bad decision through hindsight.

Not necessarily. A Monday morning QB is one that simply who criticizes or passes judgment with the benefit of hindsight, even if the decision was correct.

The funny thing is that I wouldn't agree even then with the use of weapons that couldn't discriminate between wartime combatants and women and children. So I'm not even using hindsight to strengthen my argument.

Easy to say that from our comfy armchairs. No weapon discriminates. Do you know the civilian cost resulting from conventional weapons on during our air raids?

What course of action would you have taken?

I wasn't alive during My Lai either but you better believe Im a pro bowl Monday Morning QB.

Uh, ok.

Its okay if you want to call me a Monday morning QB for My Lai too... I flat out told YOU two pages ago that if it could be proven that many more Japanese Civilians would be spared that I would be okay with the bomb. And don't even ask me what I would do in Truman's situation because once I answer you will just call me a Monday morning QB.

[AUDub 11,131]

Its okay if you want to call me a Monday morning QB for My Lai too... I flat out told YOU two pages ago that if it could be proven that many more Japanese Civilians would be spared by the bomb that I would be okay with the bomb. And don't even ask me what I would do in Truman's situation because once I answer you will just call me a Monday morning QB.

Oh, for heaven's sake.

I regret using the term if you're going to get all worked up about it, your false equivalence with My Lai notwithstanding.

I'm asking you, given the information Truman had available at the time, what you would have done?

[aujeff11 6,243]

Its okay if you want to call me a Monday morning QB for My Lai too... I flat out told YOU two pages ago that if it could be proven that many more Japanese Civilians would be spared by the bomb that I would be okay with the bomb. And don't even ask me what I would do in Truman's situation because once I answer you will just call me a Monday morning QB.

Oh, for heaven's sake. :rolleyes:/>

I regret using the term if you're going to get all worked up about it, your false equivalence with My Lai notwithstanding.

I'm asking you, given the information Truman had available at the time, what you would have done?

Its okay if you want to call me a Monday morning QB for My Lai too... I flat out told YOU two pages ago that if it could be proven that many more Japanese Civilians would be spared by the bomb that I would be okay with the bomb. And don't even ask me what I would do in Truman's situation because once I answer you will just call me a Monday morning QB.

Oh, for heaven's sake. :rolleyes:/>

I regret using the term if you're going to get all worked up about it, your false equivalence with My Lai notwithstanding.

I'm asking you, given the information Truman had available at the time, what you would have done?

Well good God, all I said was I didn't agree with the bombs. Assuming you are done falsely accusing me of being a Monday morning QB, I will say that I think the U.S. could have reached a conditional surrender if it was in the United States interest. And supposedly, the Japanese had already asked for a conditional surrenders before the bombs. The bombs were not built and paid for just to rust over, however. Truman had to deal with Stalin and what better way to keep USSR in check than to show the power of a couple A bombs.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

Its okay if you want to call me a Monday morning QB for My Lai too... I flat out told YOU two pages ago that if it could be proven that many more Japanese Civilians would be spared by the bomb that I would be okay with the bomb. And don't even ask me what I would do in Truman's situation because once I answer you will just call me a Monday morning QB.

Oh, for heaven's sake. :rolleyes:/>

I regret using the term if you're going to get all worked up about it, your false equivalence with My Lai notwithstanding.

I'm asking you, given the information Truman had available at the time, what you would have done?

Its okay if you want to call me a Monday morning QB for My Lai too... I flat out told YOU two pages ago that if it could be proven that many more Japanese Civilians would be spared by the bomb that I would be okay with the bomb. And don't even ask me what I would do in Truman's situation because once I answer you will just call me a Monday morning QB.

Oh, for heaven's sake. :rolleyes:/>

I regret using the term if you're going to get all worked up about it, your false equivalence with My Lai notwithstanding.

I'm asking you, given the information Truman had available at the time, what you would have done?

Well good God, all I said was I didn't agree with the bombs. Assuming you are done falsely accusing me of being a Monday morning QB, I will say that I think the U.S. could have reached a conditional surrender if it was in the United States interest. And supposedly, the Japanese had already asked for a conditional surrenders before the bombs. The bombs were not built and paid for just to rust over, however. Truman had to deal with Stalin and what better way to keep USSR in check than to show the power of a couple A bombs.

You should look into the planned invasion of the home islands, Operation Downfall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

As big as Overlord was, the invasion of Okinawa was even larger in terms of ships, planes & troops involved. The invasion of Kyushu would have been larger than the combined invasions of Normandy & Okinawa. Also, the attempted surrender efforts of the Japanese were through using the Soviet Union as a broker, and they still wanted a conditional surrender. Even after the two bombs were dropped & the USSR's attack on Japanese troops in Manchuria, there was still a strong faction AGAINST surrender. It was only when the Emperor stepped in and said they would that the country did finally surrender. .

[AUDub 11,131]

Well good God, all I said was I didn't agree with the bombs.

Explain this statement, please. Would you have been OK with blockading them in perpetuity and letting them starve? Continuing the conventional bombing campaign? Invading while limiting ourselves to conventional weapons? Letting the USSR attempt what was sure to be an absolutely horrific amphibious assault? All would have pretty much guaranteed higher death tolls.

Assuming you are done falsely accusing me of being a Monday morning QB, I will say that I think the U.S. could have reached a conditional surrender if it was in the United States interest. And supposedly, the Japanese had already asked for a conditional surrenders before the bombs.

That's not what the allies agreed on at Potsdam. Unconditional surrender was our (and their) only option besides annihilation.

Are you aware of the nature of Japan's attempts at negotiating a conditional surrender?

They just asked to stop fighting in exchange for nothing. They wanted to keep their empire. Asking to keep the empire is a hoax offer. Japan was a threat to the region as long as that regime remained in place.

The Japanese diplomatic traffic in their codes, which we had long since broken, between Foreign Minister Togo and Ambassador Sato, the ambassador to the USSR, would be a good read for you.

Here

Togo was the most dovish member of the Supreme War Council that was running the place.

Togo wanted the Soviets to broker a peace deal, and tried first the Soviet Ambassador to Japan and then his Japanese counterpart. Togo didn't have much success, partly because the Soviets were looking at Japanese territory hungrily, and partly because he wouldn't commit to any actual conditions. And there was no way he could, since he hadn't bothered to inform the military (the REAL folks in charge) that he was doing this. Sato regularly asked if he had any actual negotiating authority i.e. whether the military was on board and regularly got noncommittal replies.

Sato finally told his boss that the best Japan could get was "virtually the equivalent of unconditional surrender". Togo replied that they were not interested in getting the USSR to broker a deal that was "anything like unconditional surrender". Sato tried to clarify that when he said "unconditional surrender" he of course meant that the emperor would remain so. Togo's reply was not "Sure!" or even "That doesn't go far enough, but it's a step in the right direction", it was "we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever," and Japan is totally going to fight to the death.

And the American decision makers were reading this in effectively real time. Broken codes, remember? They knew that these half-assed peace feelers didn't have the military's OK. They were reading the military traffic that showed how energetically Japan was preparing for the final battle.

Now regarding our expectation for said battle, go read up on Iwo Jima (20,000 enemy combatants, 200 captured), Saipan (24,000 enemy combatants, 900 captured, 1000 commit suicide. Women and children that refused to jump were motivated with bayonets), and Okinawa(Over 100,000 enemy combatants, 7000 captured mostly Okinawan conscripts, AS MANY AS 150,000 CIVILIANS COMMIT SUICIDE, many again forced to do so at the point of a bayonet). Truman probably realized, and was very likely correct, that it was a virtual certainty that A-bomb attacks would have been paltry in comparison, though his motivation was to just get the damn thing over with.

Actually, they already were compared to the conventional bombing campaign, but he probably wasn't aware of that.

There was a damn good excuse for creating that huge stock of Purple Hearts we're very likely still using today.

[AUDub 11,131]

You should look into the planned invasion of the home islands, Operation Downfall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

As big as Overlord was, the invasion of Okinawa was even larger in terms of ships, planes & troops involved. The invasion of Kyushu would have been larger than the combined invasions of Normandy & Okinawa. Also, the attempted surrender efforts of the Japanese were through using the Soviet Union as a broker, and they still wanted a conditional surrender. Even after the two bombs were dropped & the USSR's attack on Japanese troops in Manchuria, there was still a strong faction AGAINST surrender. It was only when the Emperor stepped in and said they would that the country did finally surrender. .

There was an attempted coup d'état against the emperor.

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

You should look into the planned invasion of the home islands, Operation Downfall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

As big as Overlord was, the invasion of Okinawa was even larger in terms of ships, planes & troops involved. The invasion of Kyushu would have been larger than the combined invasions of Normandy & Okinawa. Also, the attempted surrender efforts of the Japanese were through using the Soviet Union as a broker, and they still wanted a conditional surrender. Even after the two bombs were dropped & the USSR's attack on Japanese troops in Manchuria, there was still a strong faction AGAINST surrender. It was only when the Emperor stepped in and said they would that the country did finally surrender. .

There was an attempted coup d'état against the emperor.

Thanks for posting that. I was aware of the coup attempt, too. I was speaking of the formal Supreme War Council which was deadlocked re surrender/fight on. It's worth noting also that the Emperor speaking up as he did was totally against the tradition of the Council.

[AUDub 11,131]

You should look into the planned invasion of the home islands, Operation Downfall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

As big as Overlord was, the invasion of Okinawa was even larger in terms of ships, planes & troops involved. The invasion of Kyushu would have been larger than the combined invasions of Normandy & Okinawa. Also, the attempted surrender efforts of the Japanese were through using the Soviet Union as a broker, and they still wanted a conditional surrender. Even after the two bombs were dropped & the USSR's attack on Japanese troops in Manchuria, there was still a strong faction AGAINST surrender. It was only when the Emperor stepped in and said they would that the country did finally surrender. .

There was an attempted coup d'état against the emperor.

Thanks for posting that. I was aware of the coup attempt, too. I was speaking of the formal Supreme War Council which was deadlocked re surrender/fight on. It's worth noting also that the Emperor speaking up as he did was totally against the tradition of the Council.

Gotcha.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Its okay if you want to call me a Monday morning QB for My Lai too... I flat out told YOU two pages ago that if it could be proven that many more Japanese Civilians would be spared by the bomb that I would be okay with the bomb. And don't even ask me what I would do in Truman's situation because once I answer you will just call me a Monday morning QB.

Oh, for heaven's sake. :rolleyes:/>

I regret using the term if you're going to get all worked up about it, your false equivalence with My Lai notwithstanding.

I'm asking you, given the information Truman had available at the time, what you would have done?

Its okay if you want to call me a Monday morning QB for My Lai too... I flat out told YOU two pages ago that if it could be proven that many more Japanese Civilians would be spared by the bomb that I would be okay with the bomb. And don't even ask me what I would do in Truman's situation because once I answer you will just call me a Monday morning QB.

Oh, for heaven's sake. :rolleyes:/>

I regret using the term if you're going to get all worked up about it, your false equivalence with My Lai notwithstanding.

I'm asking you, given the information Truman had available at the time, what you would have done?

Well good God, all I said was I didn't agree with the bombs. Assuming you are done falsely accusing me of being a Monday morning QB, I will say that I think the U.S. could have reached a conditional surrender if it was in the United States interest. And supposedly, the Japanese had already asked for a conditional surrenders before the bombs. The bombs were not built and paid for just to rust over, however. Truman had to deal with Stalin and what better way to keep USSR in check than to show the power of a couple A bombs.

You should look into the planned invasion of the home islands, Operation Downfall: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

As big as Overlord was, the invasion of Okinawa was even larger in terms of ships, planes & troops involved. The invasion of Kyushu would have been larger than the combined invasions of Normandy & Okinawa. Also, the attempted surrender efforts of the Japanese were through using the Soviet Union as a broker, and they still wanted a conditional surrender. Even after the two bombs were dropped & the USSR's attack on Japanese troops in Manchuria, there was still a strong faction AGAINST surrender. It was only when the Emperor stepped in and said they would that the country did finally surrender. .

What do you mean by the soviets were used to broker the deal? And exactly how did they plan to do that.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Well good God, all I said was I didn't agree with the bombs.

Explain this statement, please. Would you have been OK with blockading them in perpetuity and letting them starve? Continuing the conventional bombing campaign? Invading while limiting ourselves to conventional weapons? Letting the USSR attempt what was sure to be an absolutely horrific amphibious assault? All would have pretty much guaranteed higher death tolls.

Assuming you are done falsely accusing me of being a Monday morning QB, I will say that I think the U.S. could have reached a conditional surrender if it was in the United States interest. And supposedly, the Japanese had already asked for a conditional surrenders before the bombs.

That's not what the allies agreed on at Potsdam. Unconditional surrender was our (and their) only option besides annihilation.

Are you aware of the nature of Japan's attempts at negotiating a conditional surrender?

They just asked to stop fighting in exchange for nothing. They wanted to keep their empire. Asking to keep the empire is a hoax offer. Japan was a threat to the region as long as that regime remained in place.

The Japanese diplomatic traffic in their codes, which we had long since broken, between Foreign Minister Togo and Ambassador Sato, the ambassador to the USSR, would be a good read for you.

Here

Togo was the most dovish member of the Supreme War Council that was running the place.

Togo wanted the Soviets to broker a peace deal, and tried first the Soviet Ambassador to Japan and then his Japanese counterpart. Togo didn't have much success, partly because the Soviets were looking at Japanese territory hungrily, and partly because he wouldn't commit to any actual conditions. And there was no way he could, since he hadn't bothered to inform the military (the REAL folks in charge) that he was doing this. Sato regularly asked if he had any actual negotiating authority i.e. whether the military was on board and regularly got noncommittal replies.

Sato finally told his boss that the best Japan could get was "virtually the equivalent of unconditional surrender". Togo replied that they were not interested in getting the USSR to broker a deal that was "anything like unconditional surrender". Sato tried to clarify that when he said "unconditional surrender" he of course meant that the emperor would remain so. Togo's reply was not "Sure!" or even "That doesn't go far enough, but it's a step in the right direction", it was "we are unable to consent to it under any circumstances whatever," and Japan is totally going to fight to the death.

And the American decision makers were reading this in effectively real time. Broken codes, remember? They knew that these half-assed peace feelers didn't have the military's OK. They were reading the military traffic that showed how energetically Japan was preparing for the final battle.

Now regarding our expectation for said battle, go read up on Iwo Jima (20,000 enemy combatants, 200 captured), Saipan (24,000 enemy combatants, 900 captured, 1000 commit suicide. Women and children that refused to jump were motivated with bayonets), and Okinawa(Over 100,000 enemy combatants, 7000 captured mostly Okinawan conscripts, AS MANY AS 150,000 CIVILIANS COMMIT SUICIDE, many again forced to do so at the point of a bayonet). Truman probably realized, and was very likely correct, that it was a virtual certainty that A-bomb attacks would have been paltry in comparison, though his motivation was to just get the damn thing over with.

Actually, they already were compared to the conventional bombing campaign, but he probably wasn't aware of that.

There was a damn good excuse for creating that huge stock of Purple Hearts we're very likely still using today.

Even though you are listing all the God awful things the Japanese population could have potentially suffered through during war, the atomic bombs still stands as the worst. Even though representatives of 74 different countries were in Nagasaki yesterday to mourn the losses achieved by the cruel bomb, all you care to do is say "it's not my fault them Japs refused to die," and that fact suggests we will never agree on the subject. You can get blue in your face trying to justify the two monster cans we opened me but it's not going to work so don't even bother.

[AUDub 11,131]

Even though you are listing all the God awful things the Japanese population could have potentially suffered through during war, the atomic bombs still stands as the worst.

Oh, for ***** sake. This statement is indefensible. The conventional bombing of Japan killed upwards of a million civilians, far more than the two atomic bomb attacks. The United States Army Air Force firebombed 66 Japanese cities, not including Tokyo, which was firebombed more than once. And yet you and a whole pack of bleeding hearts want to elevate the atomic attacks to some mystical level of evil incarnate, a demon from the heart of the atom. Were the people killed in the conventional bombing any less dead than those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the survivors of the firebomb attacks suffer any less agony than the survivors of the atomic attacks?

Even though representatives of 74 different countries were in Nagasaki yesterday to mourn the losses achieved by the cruel bomb, all you care to do is say "it's not my fault them Japs refused to die," and that fact suggests we will never agree on the subject.

As I've already pointed out, those responsible were the fascist militarists who ran Japan, and who wouldn't ******* surrender.

What truly appalls me though is that I hear nothing from you about the millions and millions of Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Malays and Indonesians who were the victims of Japanese militarism. Yet you want to raise your horror over the atomic attacks to the level of religious condemnation.

The Japanese committed atrocities from 1895 onward, when they went to war with China and invaded and annexed Taiwan. They continued in 1904-05 with the Russo-Japanese War, when Japan seized the coasts of Manchuria. They continued in 1910 when Japan invaded an annexed Korea. They continued in 1931 when Japan invaded and annexed Manchuria. They continued and escalated in 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War. Go read up about the rape of Nanking, just one incident from that war. The atrocities were still going on as the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. Their navy had been destroyed. Their air forces had been destroyed. Almost all of the territory they had seized had been take back at a horrible cost to Americans, Australians, Dutchmen, Brits, Indians and the local populations. Their armies were either on the run or in hiding. Yet they would not ******* surrender.

But apparently, you don't care about those millions of victims, including Japanese civilians. Apparently you don't consider Japan's career over fifty years of attacking, slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors sufficient justification to take any means to end their madness.

You can get blue in your face trying to justify the two monster cans we opened me but it's not going to work so don't even bother.

Having your beliefs challenged sucks, huh?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Count me among those who feels that both the firebombing of civilians AND dropping an atomic bomb on two large civilian population centers violated the principles of Just War and should not have been done. (And incidentally, for Christians who care about such matters, the Nagasaki bomb basically annihilated Christianity in Japan.) There were other options available that did not necessarily mean the loss of more American or Japanese lives.

Decimate their military. Pulverize their industrial capabilities to dust. Tightly control their movements and ability to get anything other than food and medicine into the country. Do all of the above. But don't justify the killing of non-combatants in the hundreds of thousands by pointing to Japanese atrocities or hypothetical land invasions on the level of the D-Day invasion.

[Mims44 1,864]

In war, people die. It's always sad, but it always happens.

Dropping the bombs was a good move, for the war and possibly for the future. As many war mongers as there have been since those days no one has dared use another one. Never know if that would be the case had no atomic weapons ever seen action.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

In war, people die. It's always sad, but it always happens.

Dropping the bombs was a good move, for the war and possibly for the future. As many war mongers as there have been since those days no one has dared use another one. Never know if that would be the case had no atomic weapons ever seen action.

Yes, people die in war. But there's a difference in targeting military or industrial installations and there being unintended killing of non-combatants and deliberately targeting a densely populated civilian center for the express purpose of slaughtering tens or hundreds of thousands of non-combatants. Intent matters.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Even though you are listing all the God awful things the Japanese population could have potentially suffered through during war, the atomic bombs still stands as the worst.

Oh, for ***** sake. This statement is indefensible. The conventional bombing of Japan killed upwards of a million civilians, far more than the two atomic bomb attacks. The United States Army Air Force firebombed 66 Japanese cities, not including Tokyo, which was firebombed more than once. And yet you and a whole pack of bleeding hearts want to elevate the atomic attacks to some mystical level of evil incarnate, a demon from the heart of the atom. Were the people killed in the conventional bombing any less dead than those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the survivors of the firebomb attacks suffer any less agony than the survivors of the atomic attacks?

Even though representatives of 74 different countries were in Nagasaki yesterday to mourn the losses achieved by the cruel bomb, all you care to do is say "it's not my fault them Japs refused to die," and that fact suggests we will never agree on the subject.

As I've already pointed out, those responsible were the fascist militarists who ran Japan, and who wouldn't ******* surrender.

What truly appalls me though is that I hear nothing from you about the millions and millions of Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Malays and Indonesians who were the victims of Japanese militarism. Yet you want to raise your horror over the atomic attacks to the level of religious condemnation.

The Japanese committed atrocities from 1895 onward, when they went to war with China and invaded and annexed Taiwan. They continued in 1904-05 with the Russo-Japanese War, when Japan seized the coasts of Manchuria. They continued in 1910 when Japan invaded an annexed Korea. They continued in 1931 when Japan invaded and annexed Manchuria. They continued and escalated in 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War. Go read up about the rape of Nanking, just one incident from that war. The atrocities were still going on as the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. Their navy had been destroyed. Their air forces had been destroyed. Almost all of the territory they had seized had been take back at a horrible cost to Americans, Australians, Dutchmen, Brits, Indians and the local populations. Their armies were either on the run or in hiding. Yet they would not ******* surrender.

But apparently, you don't care about those millions of victims, including Japanese civilians. Apparently you don't consider Japan's career over fifty years of attacking, slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors sufficient justification to take any means to end their madness.

You can get blue in your face trying to justify the two monster cans we opened me but it's not going to work so don't even bother.

Having your beliefs challenged sucks, huh?

Firebombings are just as much a war crime as the atomic bombs are. The Nuremberg directive defined “crimes against humanity” as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war.” Do you really think the United States did not commit war crimes??

Not only were the firebombing very effective in destroying upward of 60 cities completely, but it took over a million lives with it. Weakening the case for the Atomic bombs to be necessary.

[quietfan 233]

Well today was Nagasaki 70th anniversary 70,000 people were killed but they were lucky because the bomb was off target by miles. It was a plutonium bomb which was much stronger then a uranium bomb

Technicalities:

"Little Boy", a gun-type uranium device, had a yield of about 13 kilotons (or TNT) when exploded over Hiroshima. "Fat Man", the plutonium implosion device used at Nagasaki, had a yield of about 21 kilotons. A plutonium device is not necessarily more powerful than a U-235 device: The efficiency or amount of material which undergoes fission plays a much greater role than the type of material that fissions.

Nagasaki was a second choice target. The primary target that day was the city was Kokura, but heavy cloud cover obscured that target and sent the B-52 on to Nagasaki. The bomb landed on target over the industrial center of Nagasaki in the Urakami valley, but surrounding hills protected much of the residential portion of Nagasaki resulting in a lower casualty count than at Hiroshima.

One point about the claim that Bushido, or the Japanese Samurai code, meant they (either the population as a whole or military leadership) would fight to the death: The very fact that they DID surrender sort of refutes that allegation.

True, traditions like ritual suicide in the face of dishonor (harikiri or seppuku), the kamikaze suicide attacks, and the refusal to surrender by some soldiers on some battlefields made the possibility of such a national fight to the death a valid consideration on the part of allied commanders. But plenty of Japanese soldiers did surrender and become POW's during the war. And after surrender, the Japanese people opted for passive cooperation rather than armed resistance and there was no significant resistance movement on their homeland. (Admittedly, a few lone Japanese fighters held out in remote islands or jungles for years, even decades, after the war...either because they were unaware of the surrender or refused to believe or accept it.)

So while the Samurai culture did honor a tradition of no surrender, that tradition was by no means a forgone conclusion or a certainty if there had there been an invasion. Of course the allies needed to consider that possibility in their strategic thinking, but I don't see how atomic bombs would alter such an attitude on the part of the Japanese. Why would a warrior determined to fight to the death change his philosophy based on the type of weapon likely to cause his death--sword, arrow, gun, or a-bomb? And again, they DID surrender, so perhaps fears of a national "death before surrender" resistance were unfounded. (It is also noteworthy that very few of Japanese leadership to whom we ascribed such "absolute" Samurai beliefs actually opted for seppuku after surrender: Tradition or brave talk is one thing, reality when faced with death is something else.)

I don't think we can ever determine what single factor led to the surrender--the A-bombs, the acceptance of their eventual assured defeat and/or destruction by mere conventional weapons, the Soviet entry into the Pacific war, or something else--or for that matter if there was any single cause. To adamantly stick to the story that "The Home Islands would have fought to the death if not for the two atomic bombings" is an over simplification to my way of thinking.

But as I said earlier, I have no pangs of conscience over our use of the A-bomb. A nation (the USA) defending itself against the wanton aggression of a conquering power (the Japanese Empire) has every right to use any weapon at its disposal, IMO. Although I do regret that the nation I love and respect the most, the USA, will go down in history as (hopefully) the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons in anger.

[aujeff11 6,243]

Even though you are listing all the God awful things the Japanese population could have potentially suffered through during war, the atomic bombs still stands as the worst.

Oh, for ***** sake. This statement is indefensible. The conventional bombing of Japan killed upwards of a million civilians, far more than the two atomic bomb attacks. The United States Army Air Force firebombed 66 Japanese cities, not including Tokyo, which was firebombed more than once. And yet you and a whole pack of bleeding hearts want to elevate the atomic attacks to some mystical level of evil incarnate, a demon from the heart of the atom. Were the people killed in the conventional bombing any less dead than those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the survivors of the firebomb attacks suffer any less agony than the survivors of the atomic attacks?

​Did the survivors of the firebombings have to endure radiation poisoning only to die later from it? Firebombs are atrocities in and of themselves as I said in my previous statement. You must be desperate to cling to this defense. The Atom bomb will always be brought up first because it was the United States that figuratively speaking broke the seal. I can continue to firebombing though if you would like. I hear them Nazis tried to firebomb the shizit out of Britain too. What great company we are in.

Even though representatives of 74 different countries were in Nagasaki yesterday to mourn the losses achieved by the cruel bomb, all you care to do is say "it's not my fault them Japs refused to die," and that fact suggests we will never agree on the subject.

As I've already pointed out, those responsible were the fascist militarists who ran Japan, and who wouldn't ******* surrender.

What truly appalls me though is that I hear nothing from you about the millions and millions of Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Malays and Indonesians who were the victims of Japanese militarism. Yet you want to raise your horror over the atomic attacks to the level of religious condemnation. See below

The Japanese committed atrocities from 1895 onward, when they went to war with China and invaded and annexed Taiwan. They continued in 1904-05 with the Russo-Japanese War, when Japan seized the coasts of Manchuria. They continued in 1910 when Japan invaded an annexed Korea. They continued in 1931 when Japan invaded and annexed Manchuria. They continued and escalated in 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War. Go read up about the rape of Nanking, just one incident from that war. The atrocities were still going on as the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. Their navy had been destroyed. Their air forces had been destroyed. Almost all of the territory they had seized had been take back at a horrible cost to Americans, Australians, Dutchmen, Brits, Indians and the local populations. Their armies were either on the run or in hiding. Yet they would not ******* surrender.

They committed war crimes just like we did. The only difference was that we were the victors and we were granted immunity from being prosecuted for the war crimes.

But apparently, you don't care about those millions of victims, including Japanese civilians. Apparently you don't consider Japan's career over fifty years of attacking, slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors sufficient justification to take any means to end their madness.I have never defended Japan's militant tactics. Dont put words in my mouth.

You can get blue in your face trying to justify the two monster cans we opened me but it's not going to work so don't even bother.

Having your beliefs challenged sucks, huh?

Hardly

[AUDub 11,131]

Even though you are listing all the God awful things the Japanese population could have potentially suffered through during war, the atomic bombs still stands as the worst.

Oh, for ***** sake. This statement is indefensible. The conventional bombing of Japan killed upwards of a million civilians, far more than the two atomic bomb attacks. The United States Army Air Force firebombed 66 Japanese cities, not including Tokyo, which was firebombed more than once. And yet you and a whole pack of bleeding hearts want to elevate the atomic attacks to some mystical level of evil incarnate, a demon from the heart of the atom. Were the people killed in the conventional bombing any less dead than those killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Did the survivors of the firebomb attacks suffer any less agony than the survivors of the atomic attacks?

Even though representatives of 74 different countries were in Nagasaki yesterday to mourn the losses achieved by the cruel bomb, all you care to do is say "it's not my fault them Japs refused to die," and that fact suggests we will never agree on the subject.

As I've already pointed out, those responsible were the fascist militarists who ran Japan, and who wouldn't ******* surrender.

What truly appalls me though is that I hear nothing from you about the millions and millions of Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Malays and Indonesians who were the victims of Japanese militarism. Yet you want to raise your horror over the atomic attacks to the level of religious condemnation.

The Japanese committed atrocities from 1895 onward, when they went to war with China and invaded and annexed Taiwan. They continued in 1904-05 with the Russo-Japanese War, when Japan seized the coasts of Manchuria. They continued in 1910 when Japan invaded an annexed Korea. They continued in 1931 when Japan invaded and annexed Manchuria. They continued and escalated in 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War. Go read up about the rape of Nanking, just one incident from that war. The atrocities were still going on as the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. Their navy had been destroyed. Their air forces had been destroyed. Almost all of the territory they had seized had been take back at a horrible cost to Americans, Australians, Dutchmen, Brits, Indians and the local populations. Their armies were either on the run or in hiding. Yet they would not ******* surrender.

But apparently, you don't care about those millions of victims, including Japanese civilians. Apparently you don't consider Japan's career over fifty years of attacking, slaughtering and enslaving their neighbors sufficient justification to take any means to end their madness.

You can get blue in your face trying to justify the two monster cans we opened me but it's not going to work so don't even bother.

Having your beliefs challenged sucks, huh?

The Japanese committed atrocities from 1895 onward, when they went to war with China and invaded and annexed Taiwan. They continued in 1904-05 with the Russo-Japanese War, when Japan seized the coasts of Manchuria. They continued in 1910 when Japan invaded an annexed Korea. They continued in 1931 when Japan invaded and annexed Manchuria. They continued and escalated in 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War. Go read up about the rape of Nanking, just one incident from that war. The atrocities were still going on as the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. Their navy had been destroyed. Their air forces had been destroyed. Almost all of the territory they had seized had been take back at a horrible cost to Americans, Australians, Dutchmen, Brits, Indians and the local populations. Their armies were either on the run or in hiding. Yet they would not ******* surrender.

They committed war crimes just like we did. The only difference was that we were the victors and we were granted immunity from being prosecuted for the war crimes.

Yeah? I never said we didn't. I have been pretty clear in the matter in the past, especially concerning Lemay and the Tokyo 'burbs. But let's compare things, shall we? I'll give you a few, you name an Allied equivalent in the pacific.

The Rape of Nanking

Human experimentation and Unit 731

Wholesale torture and slaughter of POWs

Slavery

Comfort women

Use of chemical weapons in Changde

Murder of between 6,000,000-10,000,000 civilians

[Mims44 1,864]

In war, people die. It's always sad, but it always happens.

Dropping the bombs was a good move, for the war and possibly for the future. As many war mongers as there have been since those days no one has dared use another one. Never know if that would be the case had no atomic weapons ever seen action.

Yes, people die in war. But there's a difference in targeting military or industrial installations and there being unintended killing of non-combatants and deliberately targeting a densely populated civilian center for the express purpose of slaughtering tens or hundreds of thousands of non-combatants. Intent matters.

An unwilling populace, sure.

If the government and military is carrying the war with the consent of the people then they become targets too.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

In war, people die. It's always sad, but it always happens.

Dropping the bombs was a good move, for the war and possibly for the future. As many war mongers as there have been since those days no one has dared use another one. Never know if that would be the case had no atomic weapons ever seen action.

Yes, people die in war. But there's a difference in targeting military or industrial installations and there being unintended killing of non-combatants and deliberately targeting a densely populated civilian center for the express purpose of slaughtering tens or hundreds of thousands of non-combatants. Intent matters.

An unwilling populace, sure.

If the government and military is carrying the war with the consent of the people then they become targets too.

The population in Japan had little choice. And they did not have access to information outside of the propaganda machine their government fed them.

The Christian population center in Nagasaki that was annihilated did not consent to the Japanese war machine. Neither did the tens of thousands of young children killed or maimed.

This is not a legitimate justification for targeting non-combatants.

[AUDub 11,131]

Did the survivors of the firebombings have to endure radiation poisoning only to die later from it? Firebombs are atrocities in and of themselves as I said in my previous statement. You must be desperate to cling to this defense. The Atom bomb will always be brought up first because it was the United States that figuratively speaking broke the seal.

This is special pleading. No one knew at the time if the bombs would even work (different types of bombs were used on each city), let alone what the long term consequences would be. Downfall had plans to use multiple bombs to clear the landing sites. We would have needed quite a few more purple hearts. Even a decade later, the long-term effects were not understood. In the 1950s, both the United States and the Soviet Union tested bombs in the open air. Both the United States and the Soviet Union put concentrations of troops within a certain distance of the detonation to see what the effects of exposure to the shock wave would be.

I think it is grossly unreasonable to claim some sort of moral turpitude based on something which no one knew would occur. Once again, the United States wanted to end the madness, wanted to end the war. Far, far more people, including Japanese civilians, would have died if a conventional invasion of Japan were carried out. The bombs ended the war, and that was a good thing. The United States ended a war they did not start, and during which the Japanese slaughtered millions of people and visited gross horrors on other, unoffending people. That was a good thing.

This is just more special pleading; this is just another example of appealing to your mystical demon from the heart of the atom.

I can continue to firebombing though if you would like. I hear them Nazis tried to firebomb the shizit out of Britain too. What great company we are in.

Yeah, Britain (and we) returned the favor in Dresden.

See below

They committed war crimes just like we did. The only difference was that we were the victors and we were granted immunity from being prosecuted for the war crimes.

I don't deny it. Go to my comparison post and answer that.

I have never defended Japan's militant tactics. Dont put words in my mouth.

Good. Because that's not what my accusation was.

Hardly

I never would have guessed, given how emotive your arguments in the post I responded to were.