 |
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by frankychan
BTW, have you seen survivors from a ground-zero detonation? I have in pictures and I'll tell you, when you realize that some of them are family members, you wanna kick someones @**. When you see the survivors skin's blackened and charred, you'll know what I'm talking about. |
Personally no. In photos yes. It was still better for the US than an invasion would have been. A demonstration may or may not have worked. There simply is no way to know. The US only had two bombs. Only one was a tested design. They had to make it count.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
redbaron
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
The US only had two bombs. |
According to Tibbets, they had 3.
PT: Unknown to anybody else - I knew it, but nobody else knew - there was a third one. See, the first bomb went off and they didn't hear anything out of the Japanese for two or three days. The second bomb was dropped and again they were silent for another couple of days. Then I got a phone call from General Curtis LeMay [chief of staff of the strategic air forces in the Pacific]. He said, "You got another one of those damn things?" I said, "Yessir." He said, "Where is it?" I said, "Over in Utah." He said, "Get it out here. You and your crew are going to fly it." I said, "Yessir." I sent word back and the crew loaded it on an airplane and we headed back to bring it right on out to Trinian and when they got it to California debarkation point, the war was over.
ST: What did General LeMay have in mind with the third one?
PT: Nobody knows.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Ethelred, but, IMO, and invasion was not necessary. Japan was already ready to capitulate and had communicated the desire to do so.
And if the goal was to secure surrender, why drop two? Why on earth was Nagasaky deemed necessary? Surely we didn't think the Japanese would be dumb enough to assume we only had one such weapon, especially since we could have detonated the other on a non-civilian target to get that point across.
But if the goal is to show Stalin we have the bomb, we have more than one, and we're willing to use it on cities, well that makes more sense, and I believe that was the underlying rationale. It wasn't the last shot of WWII, but the first of the Cold War.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
frankychan:
quote:
You know, having relatives on BOTH f***ing ends (receiving and giving) I find this last part of the statement FULLY INSULTING. I'm mean, I'm freeking raging.
I have family members that were part of the invasion force (Japanese) and family that were dodging the Nihongin's bombs and bullets while they were strafing the streets in Hawaii.
Ok, how about this....why don't I drop an atomic bomb on your ENTIRE families @**, watch them burn, then say "Oh, that sucks.....but hey, you deserved it." HUH?!
I have relatives WHO DIED AT HIROSHIMA because of an American president's decision to drop an atom bomb on a CIVILIAN POPULATION CENTER instead of Tokyo Bay, where the blast could still be seen and no lives would have been lost.
Now, if your thinking that I am against America, you are wrong! I had family members who went to Pearl Harbor to save their comrades lives, but they were military personnel. All my family members I have talked to say that even though the attack was unprovoked, they were military, not civilian. I've seen pictures of CHILDREN baked because of the blast.
Can any of you say that you've had family members hit by an atomic bomb blast?! (I'm sorry, I'm soooo mad right now I could rip apart my damn computer...but I won't) My point is, until you've actually seen or experienced something, don't say it was deserved. |
you know, i have relatives (two, specifically) that were never seen again because of the japanese occupation force. one of them would have become my great aunt-- but no, she was taken away as a "comfort woman". she probably died after what, maybe a few months of repeated gang rape by one of the imperial japanese soldiers, no?
she was civilian. she wasn't part of any army. did she deserve it? no.
another one of my family members disappeared because he was part of a non-violent resistance movement. he fired no gun, he killed no jap. but they took him and shot him in a midnight arrest, gestapo style.
did he deserve it? no.
you ask me to feel pity for the japanese who died in hiroshima, you ask me to think they did not in some way suffer because of some twisted cosmic retribution for their countries sins, without so much as a second consideration for the mass murders, the brutality, the cruelty the japanese heaped upon the koreans for no better reason than wanting to be like the white man?
you ask me to feel much grief over those hiroshima folk, innocent civilians, after what the japanese military did to nanking? the death toll at nanking was twice that of hiroshima. and unlike your relatives who were baked, their deaths were a long, drawn out process. they didn't die mercifully quick in a matter of moments, no. the chinese there suffered through four months of utter hell.
and you want me to say that the japanese, in some way, did not deserve it?
look. i'll grant, maybe those individuals there didn't deserve to die. but the japanese people as a whole... i can't see it any other way than karma.
when you see what the japanese did to korea, and then see how the japanese are whitewashing their history, you want to kick someone's @$$.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ethelred, but, IMO, and invasion was not necessary. Japan was already ready to capitulate and had communicated the desire to do so. |
Not too clearly apparently.
quote:
And if the goal was to secure surrender, why drop two? Why on earth was Nagasaky deemed necessary? |
Failure to surrender. Whether that was the right decision or not is another thing but this pure speculation that it was to cow Papa Joe is just that, speculation. I don't think a bomb on Moscow would have intimidated Stalin. It would just confirm his desire for a bomb of his own.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
ethelred, someone did goof. on that same page, though: the paragraph right after, attributed directly to a korean source:
quote:
The lifestyle of the Japanese sex slaves, called "comfort women," would be considered by many unfit even for farm animals. First, the Japanese police would seek out young, single, socially isolated and economically disadvantaged girls from religious families in Korea (80-90% of sex slaves to the Japanese army were Korean). With strong Confucian ideals, the girls were likely to value virginity and chastity, thus reducing the possibility of spreading venereal disease. The girls were lured to Japan by false promises of high-paying jobs and steady food supply; or, they were threatened at gunpoint and kidnapped. Once the girls arrived in Japan, they were forced into sexual slavery, which meant servicing up to 100 men a day for low pay or no pay at all. There was inadequate housing, long hours, limited freedom, and insufficient medical care, and those who tried to escape were killed. (An estimated 75-90% of comfort women became casualties of war.) (Chai 70-71) |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
 |
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The general population did not know the whole story, true, but they did know about the occupation of Korea, the invasion of Nanjing, etc. And they thought those were good things. Many Japanese thought they were superior to other Asian peoples. A number of them still do today. |
Well as far as I can tell the Army and/or government legitimised their conquests as wars of ‘self-defense’. I’m not too sure about the Korean conquest, as has been noted, my knowledge isn’t the best on the subject. However I am guessing that it stems from the time when the Koreans had their own empire threatening the Japanese…
As for China, I believe the pretext of Japanese aggression was the Manchurian Incident in the early thirties – Japan was acting in ‘self-defence’ against the Chinese aggressors, or so the papers would report in the days before CNN…
quote:
That is untrue also. All this invasion and occupation stuff was planned long before Tojo came into power. Hirohito himself had to share the responsibilities. |
Right, and what was Tojo before he became Prime Minister? C in C of Japan’s Kwantung army in China perhaps? Actually wasn’t he in charge during the Nanking massacre? Sounds like a career kind of guy to me – slaughtering his way to the top before he was even the Prime Minister…
quote:
They were supportive of the invasions dammit! Do you have a clue of what was going on? |
Because in a World without the instant reportage of CNN or the internet, it is easy to keep the truth from the people, to twist the truth and feed the people what they want to hear. Now as far as the Japanese people are concerned, with for example the Manchurian Incident, they were attacked first, because that is what they were told. It is understandable therefore that they might support those invasions… How are they going to verify it independently? Go there and see for themselves? Now if Tojo is in control of the Nanking theatre of war, it goes without saying that he is also in control of the Media in the Nanking theatre of war…
Does that mean civilians deserve to be incinerated just because they believe the propaganda of a government they are conditioned to believe because of the rigidly hierarchical nature of their society?
Hell, it was only a few years ago when that movie came out portraying Tojo as a hero – some people are still spewing the same propaganda now even when the truth is there for all to see!
quote:
Again untrue. The Japanese prepared "total defense." They even planned on moving to Korea if Japanese fell to the Allies.  |
Sure they prepared for it – so imagine how utterly powerless they’d feel if the US said ‘watch this’ and detonated a nuke on a military installation somewhere uninhabited by hundreds of thousands of civilians. If after a week or so, perhaps then threaten to destroy a major city – that way the onus of the deaths of civilians is at least in part on the shoulders of the Japanese Leadership.
The thing that always gets me is that it is claimed that millions of lives were saved by the detonation of these bombs – well why not another few hundred thousand???
Two things sicken me about these two bombings:
1) That they were both used on major civilian centres
2) That only three days were given for the Japanese to surrender after the first - most politicians need at least a week just to wipe their arses!
I can't get past the fact that it appears like calculated cold blooded murder that just happened to also end WWII...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Faeelin
|
|
Tau Ceti
Oct 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Ethelred, but, IMO, and invasion was not necessary. Japan was already ready to capitulate and had communicated the desire to do so.
And if the goal was to secure surrender, why drop two? Why on earth was Nagasaky deemed necessary? Surely we didn't think the Japanese would be dumb enough to assume we only had one such weapon, especially since we could have detonated the other on a non-civilian target to get that point across.
But if the goal is to show Stalin we have the bomb, we have more than one, and we're willing to use it on cities, well that makes more sense, and I believe that was the underlying rationale. It wasn't the last shot of WWII, but the first of the Cold War. |
Japan wouldn't capitulate unconditionally, which is what America wanted. America wanted the Emperor to be removed from office, and the hawks were against this. Towards the end, though, the emperor favored stepping down for the good of the nation, but lacked the power.
The Japanese actually didn't believe in the bomb initially. They were confused for more than a day as to what exactly had happened at hiroshima.
Nagasaki was to prove we'd keep on using them, and that they weren't wonder weapons of the sort the Germans were using. Actually, after word spread in Japan, the military still refused to surrender if it would mean dethroning the emperor. But after Nagasaki (and the Russian invasion of manchuria; which was more important is debatable) the emperor surrendered.
Even after this, there was still an attempted coup by the military to prevent the surrender, and an incredibly unrealistic plan to ram a kamikaze into the ship which the Japanese surrendered on.
I agree that hiroshima stands as an example of the horrors of world war II. But put yourself in truman's shoes.
You've just become president. Your nation is about to invade a nation of millions who are ready to fight with spears and use carriages to hide bombs. Children are being trained to commit suicide rather than surrender to Americans in the enemy nation. You have three choices:
You can blockade the islands. This will cause millions to die, as most food in japan was imported by sea (and starvation was expected by the japanese to cause a complete and total collapse by the end of 45). Bear in mind you still have to occupy the islands even after the mass starvations. Remember also that you have soldiers there as prisoners of war.
You can invade. You know your casualties will be in the tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, and does not include the civilian casualties on the enemy side. In addition, the Russians will take the oppurtunity to grab northern japan at little or no cost to themselves.
Now, you have a third option. You've been informed that your government has secretly built a bomb, which may terrify the enemy into surrendering. Many will die, but how does it compare to the other choices?
What, pray tell, would you have done in Truman's shoes? (And quite frankly, I think the japanese have done a really horrible job acknowledging their atrocities in that war. I feel sorry for the people at hiroshima, but the most of the japanese high command should've gone up at nuremburg.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Well as far as I can tell the Army and/or government legitimised their conquests as wars of ‘self-defense’. I’m not too sure about the Korean conquest, as has been noted, my knowledge isn’t the best on the subject. However I am guessing that it stems from the time when the Koreans had their own empire threatening the Japanese. |
what korean empire? if by a korean imperial threat you mean a nation that was constantly being besieged by the chinese and the japanese...?
the largest korean empire never even gave a second thought to the japanese. let's get this straight-- the occupation of korea by japan was committed without reason, through assassination of the entire royal family, through manipulation of political forces, and by military force.
let's get one thing straight.
i'm not saying, rah, rah, let's nuke all those jap bastards. i'm saying, it's a horror that it happened, let it not happen again. but let us also remember that hiroshima is not something to cry about, either, not the way we are now.
that being said-- i think nagasaki was overkill, in terms of war. i'm quite sure the japanese would have done themselves in after hiroshima, given time. but while i agree that it too was a horror, i can't say i'm altogether too aggreived that it was in japan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
If I had been president, I would have actually listened to the Japanese. Considering they ended up keeping the emperor anyway, I wouldn't have had a problem accepting that as the only condition for their surrender. I certainly, as frankchan said, would have considered detonating the bombs on a non-civilian target to show them what we were capable of before even considering using it on a civilian area.
Consider this: the bombings may be what allow many Japanese to stay on a high horse of moral indignation about the war and not acknowledge Japanese atrocities. They can point to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as extremely visible, potent examples of civilian massacre, whereas Nanking and the like are much less visible (no big, purty mushroom cloud). Certainly, in the interest of world opinion, I believe it would be best that the U.S. had never used the bombs. We could at least maintain a bit more credibility in our vehemence of "rogue nations" not obtaining nukes.
Frankly, the notion that we would have to blockade Japan and that more deaths might have occured is less troubling to me, as then we can clearly say these deaths were on Japan's own head for not surrenduring.
But again, they were willing to surrender, we just didn't listen (and, IMO, Truman didn't want to).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
Your initial point was that since the world has seen that u have used the bomb in hirosima it will be fearing that u will use it again to wipe out its country and that's what kept the world in peace.
that's what i was laughing at.
The USSR could make you a cockroach colony with the same ease and THAT"S what kept the world in peace (=balance of terror - mutual assured destruction)
that's all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
We have grown soft in 12 years, it seems. |
You think this debate is only twelve years old? Its been going on for a long time. I don't know about the fifties as I was still too young but in the sixties it was going strong. We know more now (secrets that sometimes waited for fifty years for release) but the basics of the debate haven't changed in decades.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
you just cant use nukes now to solve THAT problem (of terrorism). it is an assymetrical danger, nuking somebody would just turn the whole world against you with crippling embargoes, blockades etc etc etc AND it wouldnt solve the problem of terrorism in the slightest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
The USSR could make you a cockroach colony with the same ease and THAT"S what kept the world in peace (=balance of terror - mutual assured destruction)
that's all. |
Thats nonsense. The US had the bomb alone to itself for years. For many more years only the US had the capacity to deliver the things. Untill the Soviet Union had ICBMs they would have been lucky to hit a single city in the US. They did have SRBM aimed at Europe and during the Cuban Missle crissis they snuck some into Cuba.
The US had the capacity to destroy the USSR for well over a decade with little that the USSR could do in retaliation. We never did so. MAD had nothing to do with that. We CHOSE not to.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
Yes.
MAD did not save the USSR from destruction. The US chose not to do it. Try reading what you wrote and you will see that it DOES take away from what you said.
Heck you even dragged the terrorists in this and they didn't exist then. Even Israel didn't exist when the Bomb was dropped. You went way off topic just to troll with a statement that was dubious at best.
I know you can do a better job of trolling Americans. I have seen you do it before. This troll was not up to your best.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
The US had no reason to take out the USSR at that time using nukes. there was no huge danger as there was later.
And the world did stay at peace of 70 years due to MAD.
faelin, just count the bombs that the US has dropped and you'll maybe wake up.
you got two planes hit you and you go around tearing your clothes apart.
imagine the amount of bombs you have dropped to the people u have dropped them at.
just beacuse they dont have CNN...
BTW yes im trolling but that dont mean it isnt true.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
and before going to get that ice cream: the terrorism issue was introduced after DanS said that u are being "soft".
why would he say that? what do u think are u going "soft" at?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-08-2002 19:06
)
does this take away anything of what i said?
|