Nuclear Weapons

Good read. However this article is definitely not the official position of NSA and the author is still classified. The author also makes some assumptions in the article towards the end that make me question either the judgement or motive of the writer. While the author brings up some good points, the whole paragraph about the "high ranking official" being a "bird colonel" isn't accurate and certainly doesn't smell right. A colonel is by no means a "high ranking officer" in DC. If you don't have stars on your shoulders you're not even close. I also noted this article was listed on the same list with articles about extraterrestrial intelligence and extraterrestrial messages.

The debate about the decision to use the A-bomb has been going on since it's use and will certainly continue throughout our lifetimes. Neither side will change the other's position.

Did you read the article or did you scan it? What is the official position of the NSA? What does the author's name tell you? What assumptions does the author make? I think he has provided citations. As far as the "bird colonel" I believe he's a transition and exemplary character in the translation chain.

Did you read the article or did you scan it? What is the official position of the NSA? What does the author's name tell you? What assumptions does the author make? I think he has provided citations. As far as the "bird colonel" I believe he's a transition and exemplary character in the translation chain.
- Yes I read it.
- I don't believe NSA has an offical position on this matter. If they did, I'm sure it would be that the U.S. dropped the bombs to minimize casualties and obtain a Japanese surrender.
- It would be intresting to know the name of the author to find out background info on him/her and read other info published by him/her.
- The author assumes how "U.S. officials" interpreted Suzuki's statement (U.S. officials, angered by the tone of Suzuki's statement and obviously seeing it as another typical example of the fanatical Banzai and Kamikaze spirit decided on stern measures....)and makes the reach that the possible mis-interpretation of Suzuki's statement was the major factor in the decision to drop the first A-bomb.
- The paragraph about the "bird colonel" is quite a reach also. The author must've been watching one too many war movies.

Let's not forget who the aggressor was in the pacific theater of WWII. If the Japanese had the A-bomb before us, what do you think would've happened? Also consider the atrocities they committed on the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, not to mention U.S. POWs.
Estimates of U.S. casualties alone in invading Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island were 63,000. This doesn't include Japanese casualties which would be at least the same. How many lives on both sides were lost taking Okinawa? How many would've been lost attacking the mainland?

- Yes I read it.
- I don't believe NSA has an offical position on this matter. If they did, I'm sure it would be that the U.S. dropped the bombs to minimize casualties and obtain a Japanese surrender.
- It would be intresting to know the name of the author to find out background info on him/her and read other info published by him/her.
- The author assumes how "U.S. officials" interpreted Suzuki's statement (U.S. officials, angered by the tone of Suzuki's statement and obviously seeing it as another typical example of the fanatical Banzai and Kamikaze spirit decided on stern measures....)and makes the reach that the possible mis-interpretation of Suzuki's statement was the major factor in the decision to drop the first A-bomb.
- The paragraph about the "bird colonel" is quite a reach also. The author must've been watching one too many war movies.

Let's not forget who the aggressor was in the pacific theater of WWII. If the Japanese had the A-bomb before us, what do you think would've happened? Also consider the atrocities they committed on the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, not to mention U.S. POWs.
Estimates of U.S. casualties alone in invading Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island were 63,000. This doesn't include Japanese casualties which would be at least the same. How many lives on both sides would've been lost taking Okinawa? The mainland?

We did take Okinawa and it was brutal.

Given more time I am sure we can upstage WWII...I have full confidence in the stupidity of mankind.

This is a fantastic read (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf) from the evil NSA no less.

Who gives a hoot about some article? The Japanese themselves state in their Peace Museum in Hiroshima the reason that we dropped the bomb. It's there for everyone to see. It's written in several different languages. Who's trying to upstage who? Are you saying the Japanese are not being honest to the whole world about their own history as far as the bomb is concerned?

Who gives a hoot about some article? The Japanese themselves state in there Peace Museum in Hiroshima the reason that we dropped the bomb. It's there for everyone to see. It's written in several different languages. Who's trying to upstage who? Are you saying the Japanese are not being honest to the whole world about their own history as far as the bomb is concerned?

I care about some article and I would care about your claims if they were backed up with citations. At this point, an unclassified document written by an anonymous author at the NSA has more credibility than you.

We did take Okinawa and it was brutal.
Correction made, my error. Thx.

Paul Wolfowitz wrote a great article back in the late 90's about this, essentially arguing that everyone is at an equilibrium point right now, because people understand the responsibility of having nuclear weapons. The problem comes if/when terrorists get a hold of them with the plans to use them. It doesn't matter if all countries have a nuclear program, as long as nuclear weapons are HIGHLY regulated and always accounted for, the threat of nuclear war will remain just a threat. As soon as we start having weapons that are developed and unaccounted for, then we have a major political problem.

I care about some article and I would care about your claims if they were backed up with citations. At this point, an unclassified document written by an anonymous author at the NSA has more credibility than you.

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_Museum)

There you go. My citation is made of concrete and is visited by thousands of people every year. I've been there and I read why we dropped the bomb according to the Japanese. Anonymous authors only have authority in your mind.

- Yes I read it.
- I don't believe NSA has an offical position on this matter. If they did, I'm sure it would be that the U.S. dropped the bombs to minimize casualties and obtain a Japanese surrender.
- It would be intresting to know the name of the author to find out background info on him/her and read other info published by him/her.
- The author assumes how "U.S. officials" interpreted Suzuki's statement (U.S. officials, angered by the tone of Suzuki's statement and obviously seeing it as another typical example of the fanatical Banzai and Kamikaze spirit decided on stern measures....)and makes the reach that the possible mis-interpretation of Suzuki's statement was the major factor in the decision to drop the first A-bomb.
- The paragraph about the "bird colonel" is quite a reach also. The author must've been watching one too many war movies.

Let's not forget who the aggressor was in the pacific theater of WWII. If the Japanese had the A-bomb before us, what do you think would've happened? Also consider the atrocities they committed on the people of China, Korea, the Phillippines, not to mention U.S. POWs.
Estimates of U.S. casualties alone in invading Kyushu, the southern-most Japanese island were 63,000. This doesn't include Japanese casualties which would be at least the same. How many lives on both sides were lost taking Okinawa? How many would've been lost attacking the mainland?

I don't think the author assume anything. I think my next read will be The Fall of Japan by William Craig. Again, the bird colonel is a symbolic figure. The pressure on subordinates by upper management is real as evident by the whole Iraq WMD fiasco (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597159,00.html).

Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_Museum)

There you go. My citation is made of concrete and is visited by thousands of people every year. I've been there and I read why we dropped the bomb according to the Japanese. Anonymous authors only have authority in your mind.

Very clever but I'm inquiring as to your claim that they claim "[the reason why we dropped the bomb] was to reduce our casualties and to end the war." An anonymous NSA author still have more creditability but that might be due to your past transgressions against sensibility. Let's just say I am doubtful when it comes to everything.