Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


Nuclear Weapons

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-09-2009, 12:27 PM   #31
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
Not necessarily the best way to phrase your point, but my parents were born in the '30s and the anti-Japanese sentiment ran very deep for many who grew up or lived through WWII. I had a half-Japanese fiancee (was stationed at Yokota AB for 3 years) it was 1989-90 timeframe. Needless to say, my parents were less than pleased. Fortunately, the relationship fell apart.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 04-09-2009, 01:16 PM   #32
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 41
Posts: 5,301
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly View Post
If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.
Really? You don't think the government would drop them just because they could? You don't believe we weren't trying to send a subtle message to the Soviet Union, saying, "hey, look what we can do?"

Do you think Eisenhower was wrong in his assessment?
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 01:22 PM   #33
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 37
Posts: 2,906
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Not necessarily the best way to phrase your point, but my parents were born in the '30s and the anti-Japanese sentiment ran very deep for many who grew up or lived through WWII. I had a half-Japanese fiancee (was stationed at Yokota AB for 3 years) it was 1989-90 timeframe. Needless to say, my parents were less than pleased. Fortunately, the relationship fell apart.
He also went off about Santa or Fanta? It was a drink that he hated. Sorry, I can't keep up with what's politically correct and isn't? If any Japanese took offense, the Baita Gaijin appologizes.

Ah Japanese women. . . . I almost married a Japanese women myself when I was over there. I'll take a Japanese woman over an American any day of the week. They really make a man feel like a King.

Let's not get away from the subject. Many believe that nuclear weapons are so horrible that we and everyone else should get rid of them. If we hadn't dropped those bombs on Japan my grandfather and my uncles might not have made it. I might not be here. No matter what anyone says about the Japanese they weren't ready to surrender. Only the Emperor had the final say and some tried to overthrow him when he made the record.

There is the world we would like to live in and the real world. Sure, no more wars with or without nuclear weapons would be great. It just isn't going to happen. I say the bomb is a good thing. It prevents another World War were millions die instead of these BS wars were thousands die.

If we had used the big one on Osama this war would be over.

Last edited by Trample the Elderly; 04-09-2009 at 01:41 PM.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 01:32 PM   #34
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 13,116
Re: Nuclear Weapons

^^I agree with every point of this post
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 01:47 PM   #35
‎\m/
 
Mattyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Age: 42
Posts: 85,524
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
My grandfather also faught in WWII and it took him along time to get over his hate for the Japanese. I think what he said is still real for alot of our elders who fought and watch as their friends die around them. They also remember the day they attacked us on our own soil so the hate is still real for some of them. Many have moved on like my grandfather but some still hold that hate and always will. I wonder how these people with this hate go shopping when everything now comes from Japan.
That's great, I just don't think that word needed to be used is all.
__________________
Support The Warpath! | Warpath Shop
Mattyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 03:01 PM   #36
The Starter
 
steveo395's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,674
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Really? You don't think the government would drop them just because they could? You don't believe we weren't trying to send a subtle message to the Soviet Union, saying, "hey, look what we can do?"

Do you think Eisenhower was wrong in his assessment?
On July 26, we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. They said no, so we dropped the first bomb on August 6. Then we gave them another chance to surrender and they didn't. On August 9, we dropped another bomb and the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. This finally made them surrender.

The Japanese were going to fight to the bitter end. We would have had to invade if we didn't have the bomb, which would have caused a lot more casualties than the bomb did.
__________________

steveo395 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 07:40 PM   #37
Pro Bowl
 
Beemnseven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Virginia Beach
Age: 41
Posts: 5,301
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo395 View Post
On July 26, we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. They said no, so we dropped the first bomb on August 6. Then we gave them another chance to surrender and they didn't. On August 9, we dropped another bomb and the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. This finally made them surrender.

The Japanese were going to fight to the bitter end. We would have had to invade if we didn't have the bomb, which would have caused a lot more casualties than the bomb did.
Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.
Beemnseven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 08:46 PM   #38
Playmaker
 
djnemo65's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: MA
Age: 34
Posts: 2,836
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.

The Japanese kept their Emporer, but only in a ceremonial role similar to that played by the Queen of England. The Japanese were proposing a constitutional monarchy with the Emporer retaining power as head of state, which the United States rejected (to the consternation of many of Truman's advisors). While one can debate the necessity of dropping the bomb and the relative importance of Japan's acceptance of American style republican democracy, and I think you make some good points, it is misleading to suggest that Japan maintained an imperial system after the war.

World War II was the most senseless, horrible event in human history. Over 85 million people died. Some Japanese soldiers ate American captives' limbs while they were still alive. The bombing was a culmination of extreme cruelty and violence - on both sides - that is inconceivable by today's standards. My point being that you can't divorce the bombing from this context, and I can understand why the United States was willing to act as punatively as was possible at the time, even if it the argument that it was not completely necessary historically has some merit.
djnemo65 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 08:52 PM   #39
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.
Bravo sir, nicely-well-done.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 08:55 PM   #40
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by djnemo65 View Post
The Japanese kept their Emporer, but only in a ceremonial role similar to that played by the Queen of England. The Japanese were proposing a constitutional monarchy with the Emporer retaining power as head of state, which the United States rejected (to the consternation of many of Truman's advisors). While one can debate the necessity of dropping the bomb and the relative importance of Japan's acceptance of American style republican democracy, and I think you make some good points, it is misleading to suggest that Japan maintained an imperial system after the war.

World War II was the most senseless, horrible event in human history. Over 85 million people died. Some Japanese soldiers ate American captives' limbs while they were still alive. The bombing was a culmination of extreme cruelty and violence - on both sides - that is inconceivable by today's standards. My point being that you can't divorce the bombing from this context, and I can understand why the United States was willing to act as punatively as was possible at the time, even if it the argument that it was not completely necessary historically has some merit.
Given more time I am sure we can upstage WWII...I have full confidence in the stupidity of mankind.

This is a fantastic read from the evil NSA no less.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 09:39 PM   #41
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 37
Posts: 2,906
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beemnseven View Post
Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.
They may have said they wanted to surrender, but they were trying to break the Soviet & American alliance to bring the Russians onto their side. They were by no means finished.

They had no illusions about winning the war they just wanted to stop fighting it. They hoped to inflict so many casualties on the Americans that we would sign an armistice. They still had an airforce and a huge army. They hadn't run out of bullets either. Alot of their industry had been moved underground because we had firebombed them long before we used nuclear weapons. Had they known we only had two they might not have even surrendered then.

When I went to the peace museum in Hiroshima they stated the reasons that we dropped the bomb. It was to reduce our casualties and to end the war. The Japanese are very upfront about this and I don't understand why they would lie about an event that they experienced. The officers I spoke with in the Japanese Defense Forces came to the same conclusion.

You say that the dropping of the Atom bombs was just a political move but since when has war been non-political? War isn't just mindless bloodshed. It's economic, political, and psychological.

Droping an atom bomb on the Japanese was all of those. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial cities. Hiroshima is a major port. Why spend millions on a weapons program and not see if it's viable, especially when you're in a major war and you're already broke? Why let the Japanese go home thinking they really hadn't been defeated like the Germans did in 1918? Why let the Japanese military / political leadership stay in power so they could plot and scheme like the Germans did?

Truman was an artillery officer during the First World War and understood the difference between a surrender and an armistice. In the end it was the Russians who finished them off not the A-bombs.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 10:25 PM   #42
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
Given more time I am sure we can upstage WWII...I have full confidence in the stupidity of mankind.

This is a fantastic read from the evil NSA no less.
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.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-09-2009, 10:57 PM   #43
Registered User
 
saden1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Seattle
Age: 35
Posts: 10,069
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
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.
saden1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 01:17 PM   #44
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,347
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by saden1 View Post
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?
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.

Last edited by Slingin Sammy 33; 04-10-2009 at 03:04 PM.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-10-2009, 01:58 PM   #45
Playmaker
 
Trample the Elderly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Three Chopt Virginia
Age: 37
Posts: 2,906
Re: Nuclear Weapons

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
- 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.
Trample the Elderly is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.38332 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25