57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians

[Spagina]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

God, I'm sickened by the ignornace that plagues these boards. Revisionist history is liberal BS spouted forth with little to no direct evidence and mounds of "theorizing".

Well it's because most of those "Ignoramuses" don't have parents that lived during WW2. They haven't any idea of how horrific the war was and how monsterous and cowardly the attack on Pearl Harbor was.

Exactly. I had grandparents and great uncles that served in WWII. Unfortunately most of my great uncles were killed in combat, but my grandfather had some incredible stories about what went on over Europe in WWII. The one thing that really stuck out at me was when he told me about the US starting to ship troops from the European theatre over to the Pacific theatre in preparation for the landing invasion of Japan. He knew he was lucky to survive the European theatre, only 10 out of 150 men in his flight unit survived to the end of the war. He knew he was going to die over Japan, so it was a TREMENDOUS relief to him and everyone with him on the boat over to Japan when they found out that Japan had surrendered from the nukes.

That's the thing now, we have all these idealistic 18 year olds on this board, who have no knowledge of what actually happened in that war. It was one of the most atrocious events in human history, and the nuke, although a sadistic weapon, ended that chaos once and for all. I think at this point now, people concentrate on it because the United States committed the act, they don't realize that there were millions of worst things done in the war, and the US and Germany seem to be the only ones that are constantly reminded of it. Like someone stated earlier, the dropping of the nuke was a great thing in that it hopefully taught everyone a lesson to never use them again. Hopefully it was the first and the last times that they were used on anyone ever, but my view on that has become much more pessimistic since the India, Pakistan crap. Proof that lessons from history are forgetton quickly, and this thread is proof that history itself is forgotten rather quickly, and distorted to someone elses needs.

 

[MadRat]

More Japanese died to incendiary bombs than to the two A-Bombs. The President knew what he was doing when he ordered the bombs used, it was a message to Stalin. It had nothing to do with the Japanese because their fighters for defensing the cities were all but nonexistent by that time. The Japanese didn't have radar-guided flak guns like the Germans, so the B-29s were unlikely to be shot down by ground defenses. Most of the B-29s going in and out of Japanese airspace were also flying so high the Japanese fighters couldn't do anything but watch them come and go. The B-29s were using superchargers, cabin heaters, and oxygen bottles for the crew that allowed much greater altitudes than the Japanese were capable of reaching.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: darren
LINFLAS say:
<<It was not terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. There was a state of declared war and all combatants in the war dropped bombs on civilian populations. This was the way total war was conducted during WWII like it or not. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that had the roles been reversed Tojo would not have hesitated to use an atomic bomb against the US. As for the "celebration" I doubt anyone then or now enjoyed having to resort to using the atomic bomb. The reaction here is mainly due to the same old nonsense that is put forth every anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagsaki. The same voices that spew hatred and disdain for the US dropping the bombs are curiously silent whenever December 7 rolls around though. >>

yea thats true everyone was dropping bombs on civilian populations from britain through germany to china and all the way to japan. that is a context but i still dont believe it AUTOMATICALLY gives any country the right to do it.

December 7, 1941 and our declaration of war against Japan gave us the right drop it period. Japan chose how the war began and the only way they could choose how it ended was to have won it. As the attacked nation we had every right to do whatever was necessary to effect the surrender of Japan.

furthermore according to the logic written above, all it takes for hamas to justify what it does is a declration of war against israel? if thats true i think they've more than done that - they call for the destruction of the 'illegitimate state of israel'.
or perhaps since hamas is not a recognized state it doesnt have the right to be a 'legitimate participant' in any war / battle?
i think the argument we are addressing here continues to revolve on what legitimizes an action in war.
any thoughts?

Both Japan and the United States were established nation states in 1945. Israel is an established nation state in 2002. Hamas is a terrorist organization that represents no nation-state but claims to act in the name of the "Palestinian People" whatever that may end up being determined to be. In the here and now they have no more standing than any other terrorist group claiming to represent a wronged people and since they do not represent a nation state, have no embassies or diplomats, they have 0 recognized status to declare war on anyone. In any case Hamas and Israel are really subjects best left to other threads and really have no relevence IMHO to what took place 57 years ago.

december 7 is the day that japan sprung a surprise attack on our pearl harbor - a military base. are they terrorists cause they didnt declare war?

for now the issue that i'm engaging and that you partook in above revolves around 'rules of war' - without taking into consideration 'who is right'. i suppose your consideration of what japan would do if the situation was reversed. if we thought that japan DID have the bomb, first step of that is prisoner's dilemna and then the judgement - once again as to whether or not end justifies the means, at which point many would eagerly say definitely yes. i guess that'd be the next factor that may or may not our conclusions as to rules of war.

my two cents.
sorry i have more questions than answers but this seems to be a very productive engaging discussion

The Japanese were given warning that a new weapon of incredible power was to be used against them if they continued to fight. The fact that it had to be used twice to obtain a surrender should be some indication of just how hard it would have been to invade Japan.

 

[MeanMeosh]

Originally posted by: Harvey
We also gave ourselves, and the rest of the world, a practical demonstration of why it should never be used, again. What I don't understand are maniacs like Iraq, and moronic states like India, Pakistan, and others who, given what is now known, would consider using such weapons.

now, why exactly is is perfectly valid to save 1000s of US lives by taking exponentially more japanese lives, but at the same time its stupid for one of your so called "moronic states" to do so to others in defense of its civilians? are US lives worth more than indian or pakistani lives?

what exactly makes india and pakistan so moronic? cause of them fightining over a piece of land? if i remember right, the founding of the US was based upon a war for land. the people then thought it was ok to kill tens of thousands of native americans for land. the taliban was brought down in a war because of their harboring of a terrorist. why can that not be done by another goverment other than the US goverment without the populace of the US telling them that it is "not right" for them to do so? its ok for the US to possess nukes but not for other nations to do so? so it would be perfectly valid for the US to defend itself by nuking another country all over again, but it would not be for another country to do so in self defense?

all i really want to know is what makes india and pakistan moronic countries? the fact that they're a developing nation and not a fully industrial nation? the fact that they possess nukes while they're a developing nation?

i'm think that nukes should never be used again, but some of your outlooks that it is ok for the US to possess and use nukes as necessary while it is not for other countries to do so just frikkin infuriates me. its the general "we're the US, its ok for us to do something and not for others to do the same thing" mentality.

that rant probably makes no sense, but that's why its a rant.

 

[xirtam]

I find it distressing that the value of a human is *still* based on whether it is "here" or "there."

How much is human life worth? Go ahead... give it a number. You're already doing that when you're performing cost-benefit analysis with human life and the decision to drop nuclear bombs.

 

[Red Dawn]

I find it distressing that the value of a human is *still* based on whether it is "here" or "there."

You know what you would find even more distressing Sunshine? Those from "there" Killing you without a second thought.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

There are people in the middle east who hate western economic and cultural imperialism. As long as the nuking of Japan is justified, Sept. 11 is as well. Since we're arrogantly making "open challenges", how about this: weigh the meaning and relativity of "justification" and tell me who has the objectivity to dispense it.

Thank God we killed them, it saved Thousands of Americans

Man, if you fancy yourself a Christian or whatever, you really have no excuses. Do you really believe God would approve?

People are often unreasonable, illogical and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some false friends and some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank, people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building, someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.
Give the world your best and it may never be enough;
Give the world your best anyway.
You see, in the final analysis, it is between you and God;
It was never between you and them anyway.

--Mother Teresa

 

[glenn1]

Since we're arrogantly making "open challenges", how about this: weigh the meaning and relativity of "justification" and tell me who has the objectivity to dispense it.

Translation: I have no answer to your question.

 

[TNTrulez]

Those bomb rocked the world and probably those images stayed in the minds of leaders during the ages of the cold war. Can you be absolutely certain that if we did not drop them the cold war would end without a nuclear bomb being dropped?

 

[JellyBaby]

No civilized country in this era will employ a nuke, even a tactical one, unless it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight, err, well you know what I mean.

If war is waged on Iraq and Iraq uses chemical weapons I really wonder if a nuke will be used in response. The military may request it but the politicos will likely deny them.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

While the liberal, intellectual 'elite' pansies like EngineNr9 were sitting in Bay Area coffee shops sipping coffee talking about how naughty Hitler is and the best way to 'discourage him nonviolently', REAL men were dying by the thousands while actually doing something about it.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians

It's there people or ours. Us being in the "right", we felt it would be better to kill them. I'm not necessarily advocating killing innocent citizens or anything but we did what we had to do to end WWII.

 

[Pennstate]

No civilized country in this era will employ a nuke, even a tactical one, unless it absolutely, positively has to be there overnight, err, well you know what I mean.



I recalled the Bush administration right after they took office, said that tactical nukes should remain as an option. I personally think it'll open the pandora's box. Imagine this scenario:

US invades Iraq, Iraq uses chemical weapons, US retaliates with tactical nukes. Five years later, Taiwan declares independence, Mainland invades but suffers heavy casualties from chemical weapons that Taiwan secretly designed (i.e mustard gas). China sees the previous example of tactical nukes used by the US and decides the only option to winning is to set off tactical nukes along the shores; only this time these "tactical" nukes becomes more powerful. You see, it's a slippery slope.

 

[AsukaStrikes]

remember, if the japanese were gonna give up easily they woulda done that after the 1st bomb but they refused which is why we had to use the 2nd one. but dont worry, no atomic bombs will be used in warfare again.... cuz now we got more powerful nuclear, hydrogen, and neutron bombs.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Translation: You have no answer to mine.

 

[soccerbud34]

We have to realize that there are times which one person's life has to be sacrificed in order to saves the lives of tens of people.
And in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, hundreds of thousands of people were sacrificed in order to save the lives of millions of people from both the US and Japan.

We have to understand the mentality of the Japanese society during War World II, the samurai code, of which one's honor is above all else.
(i.e. kamikaze). Therefore, if the US troops does decide to invade mainland; they will not only be fighting against the Imperial Army, but japanese civilians as well, including the women and the children (there are films showing Japanese elementary school children practicing urban warfare organized by their own schools).
And just perhaps, the japanese civilians will replace islamic extremist as the first ones to utilize suicide bombings
Lastly, the japanese population has been brain washed to believe that if they do get captured by the US military, the US military will do the unmentionables to them( like how the Japanese did the unmentionables to the Chinese civilians during their occupation of China) And an example is after the US gained control of Okinawa, japanese people were committing suicide by the masses for the reasons i mentioned above.

To sum it all up, although the use of atomic bombs killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, however, indirectly, it saved the lives of millions peoples from both Japan and US.

<flame suit on>

 

[Gulzakar]

Kill or be killed

I don't see the tough decision? You gather a bunch of whiners that obviosuly know nothing of war expect what they see in movies. Wake up call...war is hell and you better damn well expect to put the enemies livelyhood below yours. Japan wasn't exactly pro-american, and I highly doubt that most of those civilians would have welcomed Americans on their soil. If the US had invaded, there would be a huge list of casualities on both sides...and a Regular Bomb, Bullet, or Mortar can't distinguish between civilian and soldier... It's a crowded little country

 

[yllus]

I subscribed to this thread in the afternoon and came back this evening to 113 messages from the Forum Notifier. :Q

Well I was hoping for some light to be shed on these "recently unclassified documents" about Truman's inner thoughts and motivation on the affair...but I suppose it doesn't matter. It was war, it was necessary, it was done. May it never be needed again.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Running off to war looking for glory and honor, stuffed full of propagandized jingoism makes you a real man? Saving Private Ryan is not reality.

We're all fallible. The cost of war is not just the destruction but the perceptions it shapes in people. Greed and violence go hand in hand.

 

[soccerbud34]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
Running off to war looking for glory and honor, stuffed full of propagandized jingoism makes you a real man? Saving Private Ryan is not reality.

We're all fallible. The cost of war is not just the destruction but the perceptions it shapes in people. Greed and violence go hand in hand.

off topic from this thread, but enginen9r, do you have a close relative in the military?

Perhaps i am misunderstaning your posts, but I find it somewhat disheartening with some of the things you have said about the American military which is comprised of American soldiers who are risking their lives to allow us to live the life that we live now.

 

[JellyBaby]

recalled the Bush administration right after they took office, said that tactical nukes should remain as an option.

Politicians will always publicly state "all options are on the table" in times of war. Nuclear weapons exist to deter enemies. Bush 2.0 is simply using strong rhetoric as a means to discourage those who don't understand that fact.

Of course he could always mean it, too.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Renob
57 years ago today the US killed 10's of thousands of civilians


Thank God we killed them, it saved Thousands of Americans.

More like millions of Americans, but hey, we're talking big numbers either way. But the dropping of the bombs and the ending of the war in Aug. '45 also saved millions of Japanese lives - from famine. Japan was facing a critical rice shortage in the winter of 45-46 and had no way to import any additional food. Had the US allowed the war to continue into '46, millions of Japanese civilians would have starved to death. As it was, the US occupied the islands and began emergency food assistance shortly thereafter. Source ->"Downfall" by Richard Frank, available from Amazon and other retailers. Truly the definitive account of the end of the war in the Pacific.

 

[glenn1]

Translation: You have no answer to mine.

Considering i asked my question first, i think your riposte is pretty lame. Still, i'll answer your question, such as it is.

weigh the meaning and relativity of "justification" and tell me who has the objectivity to dispense it.

Thank God we killed them, it saved Thousands of Americans

Man, if you fancy yourself a Christian or whatever, you really have no excuses. Do you really believe God would approve?

I'll take this "question" in two parts. The first part weigh the meaning and relativity of justification, isn't even a question. Saint Thomas Aquinas already answered this question in Summa Theologicae with the doctine of the "just war theory." I'm sure you've heard of it before, but just in case you really do live under a rock, here's a link which does a pretty good job of describing it...

The "just war theory"

As for the second part of your question about who has the objectivity, in the realm of the material world, the collective voice of a democracy speaking through its accountable elected officials does. In the larger scheme of things, God ultimately will. But since His modus operandi is to not render His decision on the matter after we're dead (or until Judgment Day arrives, whichever comes first) ultimately we have to use that God-given gray matter between our ears to arrive at what a "just" action during a war is.

Do you really believe God would approve?

God doesn't choose sides during wars, at least if He does He doesn't see fit to make his favorites known. If He did, then Stalin famously asked question, "how many divisions hath the Pope?," wouldn't be a rhetorical one.



Your turn.

 

[Dudd]

I just want to know, what, exactly, would all the anti-nuke people have done if they were in Truman's place? I can't think of a scenario in which the US could have won without taking a lot of Japanese civilians with them. In my mind, the options were nuke em, continue conventional bombings until they relent, or invade, which obviously would have included heavy bombings. I doubt diplomacy would have solved anything. True, I'm not doubting the fact that some Japanese top brass were in favor of surrendering, but do you think they would have surrendered if the US had stopped bombing and had tried to negotiate? My guess is all they'd do is stall, and try to rebuild the military to at least put up one final effort. If the bombing stopped, there goes the incentive for them to surrender. Any way I look at it, I can't see the Japanese surrendering unless we inflicted heavy damage on their entire country, both civilians and military. The nukes just made up their minds quicker.

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: FrustratedUser

Originally posted by: 0ops
Correct me if I am wrong (since I did not live through this),
Japan was practically already beaten before the the bombs were
dropped, and it did not end WWII since Germany kept on fighting
for a few more months. IMO the US just wanted to find out what
would happen if they dropped the bomb (just like they had used
bioweapons on one of their own ships to see what would happen).
This ranks as one of the worst acts of terror ever committed.

No, Germany surrendered before Japan.

We've already been over that.

Many of you have mentioned the Soviet when giving reasons for dropping these bombs. It does make a bit of sense however I've read quite a bit about this and I've never seen this mentioned. If someone could point the way to something that show that it was a consideration I'd appreciate it.

Dave

dropping of the atomic bomb is a political move against soviets, telling them to back off from putting everything under their control. Containment wasn't introduced then but i'd say that's the best word to describe that.

aug 6 1945, a-bomb dropped on hiroshima
aug 8 1945, soviets invade manchuria
aug 9 1945, 2nd a-bomb (plutonium i believe) detonated on nagasaki

the bomb used in nagasaki is 10 kilotons more powerful than the one on hiroshima (i believe), the bomb missed the original designated spot by 2 miles so the 2nd bombing wasn't a way to tell the japanese "surrender now or we'll nuke every inch of your islands" but instead telling the soviets "back off commies we'll come after ya with our nukes"

I guess Truman never would have thought that the russians got their nuclear weapons, thus starting the cold war. I'd say the cold war started when the 2 atomic bombs were detonated... that's how I see it.

correct me if im wrong (as always) that's what i remembered from the lectures