Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;544436]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

^^I agree with every point of this post

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=firstdown;544438]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.[/quote]

That's great, I just don't think that word needed to be used is all.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Beemnseven;544453]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?[/quote]
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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=steveo395;544490]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Beemnseven;544547]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.[/quote]


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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Beemnseven;544547]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.[/quote]

Bravo sir, nicely-well-done.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=djnemo65;544557]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.[/quote]

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

[URL="http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf"]This is a fantastic read[/URL] from the evil NSA no less.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Beemnseven;544547]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.[/quote]

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.

[B]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.[/B]

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544562]Given more time I am sure we can upstage WWII...I have full confidence in the stupidity of mankind.

[URL="http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf"]This is a fantastic read[/URL] from the evil NSA no less.[/quote]
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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;544605]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544613]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.[/quote]
- 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?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;544763]- 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?[/quote]

We did take Okinawa and it was brutal.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544562]Given more time I am sure we can upstage WWII...I have full confidence in the stupidity of mankind.

[URL="http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf"]This is a fantastic read[/URL] from the evil NSA no less.[/quote]

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?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544776]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?[/quote]

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544770]We did take Okinawa and it was brutal.[/quote]
Correction made, my error. Thx.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544795]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.[/quote]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_Museum]Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;544763]- 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.
[B]- 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. [/B]
- 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?[/quote]

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 [URL="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597159,00.html"]Iraq WMD fiasco[/URL].

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544802][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima_Peace_Memorial_Museum"]Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/URL]

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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544806]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 [URL="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1597159,00.html"]Iraq WMD fiasco[/URL].[/quote]
I completely understand the symbolism of the "bird colonel", however this is the extreme "Rod Steiger in Mars Attacks" version of what could've happened. The more likely scenario is that the "bird colonel" would have taken all the information he was given and passed it along to his superiors for fear of getting reprimanded for not providing everything he had if something came out later.

Just a nit-picking point, and maybe this is something that they did "back in the day", or it's just me, but I've never heard anyone in the military, intel community, or associated with military call an O-6 a "bird colonel". The term used is "full-bird colonel" or "full-bird".

The Libby-Valerie Plame association doesn't hold any water with me in this discussion. As usual, we agree to disagree.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544809]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 might be due to your past transgressions against sensibility. Let's just say I am doubtful when it comes to everything.[/quote]

My claim? :laughing-

I don't have anything to prove to you, as if you're an authority on anything. :laughing-

I'll bet that I'm not the only former serviceman on this blog who has been to that museum. Thousands of people have been there. If you don't believe me then get a plane ticket and fly there yourself.

Let me make it easy for you. When you first walk into the museum there will be a huge map of old Hiroshima in a circle with a big red ball over top of it. The big red ball is to show how far up the bomb exploded since it was an airburst weapon. Beyond that display you'll see stairs leading to the hall where they have hands and feet in jars. Before you go up the stairs there is a plague that states why we dropped the bomb. It's right next to a globe where they show which countries have nuclear weapons, how many, and what type they are.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

I believe [url=http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/frame/Virtual_e/visit_e/estPanel_2b.html]this [/url]is a virtual shot of what Trample is speaking of.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;544829]I believe [URL="http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/frame/Virtual_e/visit_e/estPanel_2b.html"]this [/URL]is a virtual shot of what Trample is speaking of.[/quote]

Is that what you're speaking of TTE?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;544829]I believe [url=http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/frame/Virtual_e/visit_e/estPanel_2b.html]this [/url]is a virtual shot of what Trample is speaking of.[/quote]

They've changed things around a bit. When I was there last they made no mention of Pearl Harbor, only that we were at war. Nor did they mention the God awful things they did to the Chinese, Koreans, and everyone else they got their hands on. I doubt they'll put that in their museum or change their school books either.

This museum is to persuade other nations to get rid of nuclear weapons. What the Japanese don't realize is the destructive power that the big table shows only makes tin pot despots salivate.

I don't think it's important anymore. Most of the people who posted on this thread have some common sense and I've more important things to do then to bang heads with Saden all day long.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544820]
I don't have anything to prove to you, as if you're an authority on anything. :laughing-
[/quote]


You're absolutely right, you have nothing to prove to me and I am free to be skeptical. Like you I don't claim to be the authority on anything.

Since we are being honest this is the language of children. Let's stay focused.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544835]Is that what you're speaking of TTE?[/quote]

Yes it is. That is the museum. Go fly there and take a look around. You'll like it because they agree with you about nuclear weapons. Oh, watch out for the Japanese Guardian Angels. They don't like Americans, regardless of race.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Brother saden1, don't get the whole "I'm glade as hell" thing all twisted. You see, like brother trample, I too have spent time over seas in the far East (Okinawa, and a little time in main land Japan). I have studied the Japanese culture and their people.

I guess that I don't have remind you that Japan dragged our reluctant asses into war with them when they attacked us at Pearl. You see before we were attacked, we were asked by our friends in Europe to save their beacon, because they were getting the crap kicked out of them by those same bad guys. Our so called political heros were too busy wringing their hands over the thought of going to war, and dealing with the menace of Japan, Germany, and Italy. These countries at the time were playing a game of world domination and genocide.

I also have read plenty of novels that cronicle our involvement in WWII. These novels are military, so you would probably not be interested. But, if you would ever like to get a different perspective, you should check some out. And when you do, you will learn how that those same people that started our involvement were vicious, cruel, and merciless, and yes racist killers.

The Japanese people were led by their Emperor, and to surrender was to disgarce him. They were ingrained that surrender is not an option. These people saden1 fought to the last man, and when all was hopeless they would either committ suicide, or bonzi charge your ass. That is why our casaulty rate was so high when we would "island hop" toward the main land of Japan. So don't misunderstand that the A-bomb really saved lives. And yes as crazy as that may sound to you. Because if we had done a main land invasion, the human cost would have been much higher. And trust me when I say this, but a land invasion would have pretty much destroyed much of Japan itself, and it would have taken far longer to rebuild Japan. It's a pretty safe bet that Japan would not have been able to rebuild to the Japan that we know of Japan today.

And in closing, you saden1 should really stop throwing fire bomb threads like this. All it does is piss one another off. It is obvious that no one will ever change your way of thinking clearly. I engage you from time to time because you challenge me, and I like that. But to others bro, I think your act is getting old. I'm sure that your professor is very proud of what you have become.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=4mrusmc;544925]Brother saden1, don't get the whole "I'm glade as hell" thing all twisted. You see, like brother trample, I too have spent time over seas in the far East (Okinawa, and a little time in main land Japan). I have studied the Japanese culture and their people.

I guess that I don't have remind you that Japan dragged our reluctant asses into war with them when they attacked us at Pearl. You see before we were attacked, we were asked by our friends in Europe to save their beacon, because they were getting the crap kicked out of them by those same bad guys. Our so called political heros were too busy wringing their hands over the thought of going to war, and dealing with the menace of Japan, Germany, and Italy. These countries at the time were playing a game of world domination and genocide.

I also have read plenty of novels that cronicle our involvement in WWII. These novels are military, so you would probably not be interested. But, if you would ever like to get a different perspective, you should check some out. And when you do, you will learn how that those same people that started our involvement were vicious, cruel, and merciless, and yes racist killers.

The Japanese people were led by their Emperor, and to surrender was to disgarce him. They were ingrained that surrender is not an option. These people saden1 fought to the last man, and when all was hopeless they would either committ suicide, or bonzi charge your ***. That is why our casaulty rate was so high when we would "island hop" toward the main land of Japan. So don't misunderstand that the A-bomb really saved lives. And yes as crazy as that may sound to you. Because if we had done a main land invasion, the human cost would have been much higher. And trust me when I say this, but a land invasion would have pretty much destroyed much of Japan itself, and it would have taken far longer to rebuild Japan. It's a pretty safe bet that Japan would not have been able to rebuild to the Japan that we know of Japan today.

And in closing, you saden1 should really stop throwing fire bomb threads like this. All it does is piss one another off. It is obvious that no one will ever change your way of thinking clearly. I engage you from time to time because you challenge me, and I like that. But to others bro, I think your act is getting old. I'm sure that your professor is very proud of what you have become.[/quote]

Very good post.

I do disagree about the rebuilding statement. Germany (Dresden specifically) was demolished in many ways, but was rebuilt and thrives. I have no doubt that if we had firebombed Japan, we would have been there for the re-building as well.

I also think there was a huge political aspect to the bombings, warning Russia off at the time, and if we had not done that, history most certainly would have written a different story.

If I remember right in Roman history, after a series of brutal Carthaginian wars, they salted the earth. This was their final act to say they were not gonna fight the same fight anymore. I have always looked at Hiroshima/Nagasaki in that light. Americans had expended a lot of blood and toil for Europe and Asia's fights, and the American President and people were fed up and wanted to make a huge statement to the effect - If you want to keep fighting, we are going to go postal on you a**.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544165]Would you be willing to give up America's nuclear arsenal in exchange for a nuclear weapons free world? Is this something worth striving for?[/quote]

I say keep the biggest stick especially since you're one of the few that are least likely to use it...nowadays. Getting rid of nukes just means someone somewhere will develop a different destructive technology that will eventually spread around until a new equilibrium of force deterrent is established.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;544950]Very good post.

I do disagree about the rebuilding statement. Germany (Dresden specifically) was demolished in many ways, but was rebuilt and thrives. I have no doubt that if we had firebombed Japan, we would have been there for the re-building as well.

I also think there was a huge political aspect to the bombings, warning Russia off at the time, and if we had not done that, history most certainly would have written a different story.

If I remember right in Roman history, after a series of brutal Carthaginian wars, they salted the earth. This was their final act to say they were not gonna fight the same fight anymore. I have always looked at Hiroshima/Nagasaki in that light. Americans had expended a lot of blood and toil for Europe and Asia's fights, and the American President and people were fed up and wanted to make a huge statement to the effect - If you want to keep fighting, we are going to go postal on you a**.[/quote]

We firebombed Tokyo and rebuilt it. It is thought by many that the firebombings were far more destructive than the A-bombs.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II]Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

The Russians were huge in ending the war in Japan. If the Japanese had been allowed to evacuate their armies in Manchuria they would've been able to hold out for another six months to a year, A-bomb or not.

[url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/RMF.htm]The Soviet Army Offensive: Manchuria, 1945[/url]

I disagree with the Peace Museum's revamped explanation of some of the reasons that we used the bomb. If we had the bomb in 1943 we would have used it on Germany. We had no problem firebombing them and snuffing out civilians who lived in their industrial cities. Since they manned those factories they might as well have been targets too. We were de facto at war with the Germans before they declared war on us anyway.

Only Italy escaped the massive firebombings because we didn't want to destroy the ancient history of the Western world. Besides the Italians had stopped fighting for the most part and in the end turned on the Germans and El Deuce.

I agree with you. Pay back is a MOFO and all is fair in love in war. There is one thing that the Americans did do in WWII that no one can dispute, win.

I would bet my bottom dollar that more countries in the future will aquire nuclear weapons than give them up. Many countries are nuclear capable already, most notably Germany, Japan, and Canada. I think there are a few Latin American countries that could build the bomb too, Brazil and Argentina if I'm not mistaken.

The question that this thread asks if irrelevant. If the people in all nations decided to ban nuclear weapons it still wouldn't matter. If the governments and military establishments want them, they'll keep them.

Anyone who believes the Russians or the Chinese will ever give up nuclear weapons needs to have their head examined.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=4mrusmc;544925]Brother saden1, don't get the whole "I'm glade as hell" thing all twisted. You see, like brother trample, I too have spent time over seas in the far East (Okinawa, and a little time in main land Japan). I have studied the Japanese culture and their people.

I guess that I don't have remind you that Japan dragged our reluctant asses into war with them when they attacked us at Pearl. You see before we were attacked, we were asked by our friends in Europe to save their beacon, because they were getting the crap kicked out of them by those same bad guys. Our so called political heros were too busy wringing their hands over the thought of going to war, and dealing with the menace of Japan, Germany, and Italy. These countries at the time were playing a game of world domination and genocide.

I also have read plenty of novels that cronicle our involvement in WWII. These novels are military, so you would probably not be interested. But, if you would ever like to get a different perspective, you should check some out. And when you do, you will learn how that those same people that started our involvement were vicious, cruel, and merciless, and yes racist killers.

The Japanese people were led by their Emperor, and to surrender was to disgarce him. They were ingrained that surrender is not an option. These people saden1 fought to the last man, and when all was hopeless they would either committ suicide, or bonzi charge your ass. That is why our casaulty rate was so high when we would "island hop" toward the main land of Japan. So don't misunderstand that the A-bomb really saved lives. And yes as crazy as that may sound to you. Because if we had done a main land invasion, the human cost would have been much higher. And trust me when I say this, but a land invasion would have pretty much destroyed much of Japan itself, and it would have taken far longer to rebuild Japan. It's a pretty safe bet that Japan would not have been able to rebuild to the Japan that we know of Japan today.

And in closing, you saden1 should really stop throwing fire bomb threads like this. All it does is piss one another off. It is obvious that no one will ever change your way of thinking clearly. I engage you from time to time because you challenge me, and I like that. But to others bro, I think your act is getting old. I'm sure that your professor is very proud of what you have become.[/quote]

I wasn't planning on responding but the heck with it, here goes:

Good Reverend 4mrusmc, I asked a simple and straightforward question that's relevant to current events. You're welcome to put your two cents in but your not welcomed to ask a question and then pretend to be a victim when it's answered. If you stick your foot in your mouth that's not my fault. I didn't doooo it! That goes for homeboy TTE but I think he might actually have a legitimate excuse, he has foot fetish. Isn't that so TTE? There's another possibility, bad choice of words on your part and responding on my part.

You read military novels? Me too, my favorits are Mother Night, Catch-22, and Slaughterhouse Five. I also play WWII video games now and then. You?

I have learned quite a bit about the Japanse and WWII in this thread. I thank you sir, very much. I'm still not sure what triggered the need for this history lesson though. Was my historical ignorance that obvious in my posts? I'm a confused sheep who doesn't know what you're on about.

I'm glad you feel challenged now and then, hopefully you'll afford others the ability to speak for themselves. My professor would agree that it's the right and honorable thing to do.


Remember folks, it's much harder to be nice than it is to be an asshole.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Also, know that in WWII it was a race to the A-bomb. Most of the countries knew that there was a race to get this technology, and who ever got it first and use it first was the winner. It was either us or them. And again I'm glad as hell that it was us first.

I'm sure that if anyone could interview any of the guys that were floating on naval ships that were on their way to the main land Japan for the land invasion would say the same thing too.

When they say that war is hell, it's because it is. I say that except for ending slavery, Facism, Nazism, Communism, and Terrorism war has never solved anything. I wore the uniform of the United States Marine Corps for four years, and fought in a war, so I too have seen it's "hell" upclose and in-person. So I feel a personal touch with topics like this, and I try to convey that with people should they chose to listen.

Because of brave, and couragous people who chose to go after the A-bomb technology like they did. It know doubt changed the face of the world we live today. It also brought an end to WWII, and saved American lives who would have been snuffed-out with a land invasion. Those same lives saved are the reason some of us are here today. As the result of us conquering over evil, it has sometimes unfortunately allowed us the privilege to debate such things out in the open or in saden1s' classroom.

But, to answer the threads' original questions. In the fantasiful world that some would want us to live in, sure it would be great if we didn't have to fight wars and use terrible weapons like the A-bomb. But, being that this world is full of bad guys doing bad guy things, it kind of renders the second question moot. I think it is wishful and hopeful thinking. As they say about wish in one hand and hope in the other.....

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544987]I wasn't planning on responding but the heck with it, here goes:

Good Reverend 4mrusmc, I asked a simple and straightforward question that's relevant to current events. You're welcome to put your two cents in but your not welcomed to ask a question and then pretend to be a victim when it's answered. If you stick your foot in your mouth that's not my fault. I didn't doooo it! That goes for homeboy TTE but I think he might actually have a legitimate excuse, he has foot fetish. Isn't that so TTE? There's another possibility, bad choice of words on your part and responding on my part.

You read military novels? Me too, my favorits are Mother Night, Catch-22, and Slaughterhouse Five. I also play WWII video games now and then. You?

I have learned quite a bit about the Japanse and WWII in this thread. I thank you sir, very much. I'm still not sure what triggered the need for this history lesson though. Was my historical ignorance that obvious in my posts? I'm a confused sheep who doesn't know what you're on about.

I'm glad you feel challenged now and then, hopefully you'll afford others the ability to speak for themselves. My professor would agree that it's the right and honorable thing to do.


Remember folks, it's much harder to be nice than it is to be an asshole.[/quote]
Hey saden1 I'll respond to your last statement now, but not with bad words like you chose to use. It feels great to be nice, and do nice things in a nice world. But, you know what my friend, this world is not as nice as you would like to try to make it. All I was doing was to try to justify us using the A-bomb when we did, and why. Your simple and straight forword question as it relates to this fantasiful thread, is just that, fantasiful. You need to wise up and live in the real world, and take those rose colored glasses off.

I have another question for you, and I ask this with all do respect, but how old are you? Maybe I'm just and old fart type that can't quite communicate with you the way expect, or deserve.