Nuclear Weapons

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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?

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- 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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

We did take Okinawa and it was brutal.

Correction made, my error. Thx.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

- 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.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

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.

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.