RE: The Bomb.

RE: The Bomb. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

evyy -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 1:22:10 AM)
Innocent American civilians die and it's terrorism, America kills innocent civilians and it's an acceptable sacrifice. The ends might have justified the means for America, but the again that’s the same reasoning that terrorists use today, what’s really worrying is that all these years latter Americans still aren’t able to look back on what they did objectivity, if any country but America did bombed cities of innocent people no one would hesitate to condemn them, regardless of the reasons. Its that attitude that it was the right thing to do that has lead to the mind set we have today where the mass death of civilians is acceptable, as long as their not American civilians.

Zensee -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 1:23:26 AM)
quote: A measured an accurate retaliatory response? I would say yes... Pear Harbour was a military target. As underhanded as any surprise attack may be it is a time honoured military tactic and one for which the neglegent Pacific Fleet was clearly not prepared. Suggesting it is acceptable to exact revenge on a civilian population, for one's own military blunders, is dispicable. Perhaps carpet bombing Japan with copies of the film from the first test detonation would have sufficed. Or a little demonstration off shore but near a large city or in asparsely populated area. Mount Fiui even! There were many ways to get a message to a surrounded and isolated Japan. There was no justification for targeting two cities. 0

CreoleCook -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 1:28:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zensee There was no justification for targeting two cities. The folks within the US expected, frankly for at least one of the planes to be shot down. Hate to give you the short and skinny there, but thats why two bombs, and two cities.

Zensee -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 1:33:00 AM)
quote: The folks within the US expected, frankly for at least one of the planes to be shot down. Hate to give you the short and skinny there, but thats why two bombs, and two cities. FFS! Let me rephrase that so it takes up a little less room in your head. There was no justification for targetting ANY cities. 0

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 1:47:18 AM)
Yes there was Zensee, there was a WAR on with an enemy that that had a military tradition of.... NO SURRENDER AT ANY COST. see Japanes soldiers running from a trench and leaping off a cliff rather than surrender. Extreme means are required to defeat such an enemy. Soft option sociology doesnt count for much in WAR. Just a point on the two bombs, in fact they used different methods to produce nuclear explosions.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 2:05:24 AM)
Seek, your point on the Japanese having a tradition of no surrender is pointless because Japan was already seeking to end the war before the bombings. The excuse that invading Japan would have cost thousands of lives is just that, an excuse. The USA, for which I think they had every right, demanded a totally unconditional surrender. A demonstration of the bomb would have probably been adequate at the time to get the Japanese to rethink the condition part of the surrender. However, the US wanted to test the bomb on civilians, I think there are enough quotes at the time to suggest this was the real reason for using the bomb.

evyy -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 2:07:03 AM)
i think it's the American army that proved that they were prepared to win at any cost, the threat the Japanese posed is nothing in comparison with the inhumanity of bombing two cities of innocent people, and doesn’t the fact that they used different methods in the bombs more of a testimony to the fact that it was as much a science experiment as a military tactic.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 3:35:22 AM)
Meatcleaver, those Japanese that may have considered surrender, did so on THEIR terms. Many in Japan held the view No Surrender. The Yanks thought differently and ultimately imposed THEIR terms. Evyy A minor point but the decision to drop the bombs was taken at the highest level. ie Truman and his advisors, I think they made the right decision. Someone earlier has pointed out that 10's of thousands on BOTH sides would have perished had an invasion of mainland Japan taken place. See again the opposition offered by Japan as the Yanks advanced thru' the Pacific Islands. Another point to those who view the US as Imperialist. How come they didn't maintain control of Japan for a much longer period than they actually did ? Incidently I am no blind admirer of the US, I just try to make an independant analysis of "events" as I see them and to the best of my ability. Thassal.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 3:50:36 AM)
Meatcleaver...your point about a demonstration being sufficient to persuade the Japs to surrender is a speculation, a reasonable, but in my opinion unbelieveable and mistaken one. I speculate that a likely response was that the Japs would think...look softee Yankees lack the will to defeat the mighty Japanese nation. Fight on to Victory. The Japanese record points to the latter. Note that they did not immediately surrender after the first bomb! This delay could be explained by debate in which there must have been, in fact was, a no surrender faction. The point saying the need to test the bomb was a factor in its use is a silly argument. A test had already been carried out in New Mexico, the scientists involved no doubt were asked for "advice" as to the likely effects when and if the bomb was deployed against Japan. It did what was intended, stopped the WAR.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 4:11:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave Another point to those who view the US as Imperialist. How come they didn't maintain control of Japan for a much longer period than they actually did ? Incidently I am no blind admirer of the US, I just try to make an independant analysis of "events" as I see them and to the best of my ability. Thassal. Modern imperialism doesn't require troops on the ground, it requires control and influence of international financial systems. Though that being said, the USA has troops in 44 different countries around the world, a similar number to what was eventually created by the British Empire. I don't think any American administration suddenly came up with the idea of creating an empire but the effect of American foreign policy post 1945, is the creation of an American empire. There has been a lot of debate on this in history faculties in Yale and Harvard. I remember a discussion on BBC World Service where one Harvard proffessor said the history of the British Empire should be taught to American history students who go on to be political advisors because of many direct parallels between the British empire and the American empire.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 4:20:02 AM)
The British Empire was essentially created by private enterprise through private companies. The British government in the mid-19th century effectively nationalised the Empire to prevent corruption and exploitation of local communities by private companies and working against British national interest as they sought profits at any price. It was then that duty to the Empire was taught to British administrators. Something that is old fashioned and out of date now. One Harvard proffessor said America needs to create a duty to the American empire so private companies don't constantly work against American interests and exploit in the name of America.

ScooterTrash -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 4:37:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Level Did America do the right thing when it used two atomic bombs against Japan during World War II? A loaded question to say the least. Morally, probably it wasn't a great choice, but arguably, war is a messy business. The problem with war is that both (or however many) sides are certain they are right. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not unlike knocking out the biggest asshole in a bar...it get's your point across not to mess with you. We were certain we were right and not afraid to prove it. At some point this "knockout" would have been done, if not there, somewhere else..it was a strategic move which molded the future. Sure, it demonstrated that the power of the atom was a force to be reckoned with, but it also demonstrated that it was a terrible and non selective weapon that should not be used again. That fateful day has been the example all these years of why the capability of being able to produce and utilize this type of weapon needs to be controlled and regulated. Should it have happened, who knows? Would it have happened somewhere anyway? Yes.

caitlyn -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 5:38:20 AM)
CrappyDom is quite corect, in my opinion. The bomb had more to do with stopping the Soviets from gobbling up land in Asia, and worked quite well. Containing Japan would not have saved any lives at all. It would have only moved casualties to another sphere and multiplied them by a factor to ten. Do some research about the conduct of the Soviet army in Asia. Did China, who was our ally, and did not start the war with Japan, really need to go through that brutality again?

MyMasterStephen -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 5:45:11 AM)
The Hiroshima bomb was justifiable, as it stunned the Japanese into surrender AND indicated to the Soviets that they should toe the line. The Nagasaki bomb was not justified: Japan was already preparing a surrender, and the Soviets had been shown the power of atomic weapons. The only reason for the Nagasaki bomb was that it was of a different design, and America wanted to test it in combat.

seeksfemslave -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 5:45:54 AM)
Just another point about atomic weapons I believe McArthur wanted to launch a pre emptive nuclear strike against China during the Korean War. Didn't happen tho' did it. Wicked Americans.! With regard to US empire such as it is, tho' off topic may be I should say something critical about the US, (sounds a bit pompous NO? ) but I think that it has arisen due to their paranoid, hypocritical and almost laughable anti communist attitudes. Dont forget Yanks, your own Federal government policies rescued you from the debacle of the self imposed 30's depression.

caitlyn -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 5:50:10 AM)
For meatcleaver, evyy, Kedicat, and Zensee ... a short question. Are you saying the United States should have sat and watched while tens of millions of Chinese died? Now I understand that my friend meatcleaver is in the business of blaming America for every fucking thing he can possibly imagine ... but is this the postion that you really want to support? Do the lives of Chinese people, really mean so little to you? These are complicated issues. Sometimes the "save a life today" crowd, ends up costing us ten-score tomorrow. There is much history to support this.

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 6:17:08 AM)
I don't agree with your premise in the first place. There is more than enough evidence to show Japan was genuinely seeking an end to the war. I agree it had conditions and I agree with the US right not to have accepted them but I don't believe dropping the bomb on cities was necessary nor if you look at the historical records do I believe that people making the decision at the time really believe that. I think it was more as MyMasterStephen suggests, to show the USSR who was going to be the post war boss. It is that legacy that we live with today. Get the bomb and no one can boss you around. The reason the USSR raced for the bomb was to get in a position where it couldn't be bossed around by the US.

vield -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 6:28:46 AM)
There is never going to be consensus on the topics related to the atomic bombings. Both sides remained at war after the terrible fire bombing of many Japanese cities, though some of these attacks killed more people than eith atomic bomb. War also kept going after the firebombing of cities in England and in Germany. The Japanese did NOT surrender after the 1st bombing. Yes some Japanese wanted to do so, but some had wanted to do so since their fleets were lost and their commerce was destroyed and their defensive perimeter was broken, over a year earlier. The US had no information that these feelers were of any greater importance than many earlier ones, because the Japanese sent the information to the Russians, who witheld it so they could get into the war and get a few pieces of the Japanese Empire. One bomb was very bad and even though the death toll had been worse in some previous firebombings, the Japanese continued carrying out the war. One of the worst US losses came after Hiroshima, when a Japanese submarine sank the heavy cruiser which had just delivered the second atomic bomb to the Air Force in the Marianas. The Nagasaki bomb showed the Empire of Japan and the entire world that Hiroshima was no one time fluke, that more bombs could exist and could be used. At this point the Japanese Emperor stepped in and required the miltary to surrender, which actually was a big surprise to much of the Japanese military and population. In point of fact the Nagasaki bomb WAS the last one, as only three had been produced, and one of those was expended in a test in the US. The morality of making war on anyone is subject to debate and will never be something all people of all nations agree about. The military value of the target cities chosen is something which has raised much debate, since few folks assess the alternative targets which were authorized for both missions. Hiroshima was a major army and navy center, much like Oahu is. One of Japan's powerful battleships blew up in Hiroshima Bay in 1943 due to a magazine accident.The various target cities each had varing degrees of military presence, political importance and armament industries. The targets chosen were bombed because the weather there seemed best those days. It is impossible to look back over 60 years and fairly judge the decisions made by people of those times. We are not in their shoes and they did not have our values. Of course topics like this give us chances to tell others our points of view. As usual your mileage may vary! vield

meatcleaver -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 6:32:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn For meatcleaver, evyy, Kedicat, and Zensee ... a short question. Are you saying the United States should have sat and watched while tens of millions of Chinese died? Now I understand that my friend meatcleaver is in the business of blaming America for every fucking thing he can possibly imagine ... but is this the postion that you really want to support? Do the lives of Chinese people, really mean so little to you? These are complicated issues. Sometimes the "save a life today" crowd, ends up costing us ten-score tomorrow. There is much history to support this. This is a change of direction from your usual posts where you tend to say such worries should not be the worry of the US. I suspect the concern you show for the Chineese in this post is more a convenience for justifying the bomb being dropped on civilians. We have had the debate in Britian about the carpet bombing of German cities and it is thought not to have been necessary. Even at the time of it happening, Churchill who was collaborating in the decision making of carpet bombing cities was happy to push the blame onto the commander of the bomber squadrons, which shows the allied leadership were aware of the immorality of their policies.

caitlyn -> RE: The Bomb. (8/26/2006 6:41:14 AM)
You are completely dodging the hard question. The Soviet army was rampaging through Asia. The common tactic was to pull up outside a city and shell it into submission. This isn't a premise you can dispute ... it is documented fact. The only way to stop the Soviets from doing this, was to show them who was boss. Now, it's a simple question really ... you are either for dropping the bomb, or you are for allowing the Soviets to shell the fuck out of China. You see, that is the REAL decision that faced people at the time. They were not able to dodge the REAL issue, and if you are going to assign so much blame, like you are fond of doing ... perhaps you could be so kind as to actually give us your views of the REAL decision. Do you prefer dead Japanese, or dead Chinese ... which one shall it be? If you answer is going to be neither, please outline the steps you would have taken to keep the Soviet army in place.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875