# 68 years ago today



## Little-Acorn (Aug 5, 2013)

68 years ago today, on August 5, 1945, a single B-29 bomber dropped a single uranium bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. 80,000 Japanese people were killed, and no Americans. By the end of 1945, approx. 30,000 more Japanese had died from injuries, starvations, and radiation.

Three days later, on August 8, a plutonium bomb was caried to Kobe, Japan. But the city was hidden by clouds, so the plane turned and flew to the alternate target, Nagasaki, and dropped it there instead. 50,000 people died from the explosion, with 20,000 more dying within a few months.

The bombing help end the war quickly, made an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary, and saved millions of Japanese and American casualties that would have died in such an invasion.


----------



## Old Rocks (Aug 5, 2013)

Agreed, and also may have had an even more important effect. Stating what the power of the nuclear bomb could do, and actually seeing the results are two very differant things. The rules of all out war changed that day. Every nation could fool itself into thinking, as Germany did, that it could defend it's cities, and take x amount of damage from the planes that did get through. But now it was one bomb, one city. No real defense.

I think those two aspects of the nuclear bombing of Japan prevented WW3. No matter how you cut it, no winners in such a war.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 5, 2013)

How many people did the Japanese occupation soldiers kill, rape, torture, mutilate and force to work until they dropped and then were killed over the 35 years of Japanese aggression and domination?


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Aug 5, 2013)

Remember Pearl Harbor. You get what you deserve.


----------



## Zona (Aug 5, 2013)

Now,  they are healthier, better educated and live longer than Americans. Technologically they kick our asses as well.


----------



## Moonglow (Aug 5, 2013)

But they've been in recession for 20 years.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 5, 2013)

AzMike said:


> Remember Pearl Harbor. You get what you deserve.




So, deliberately killing all those civilians was an act of revenge?


----------



## Wildman (Aug 5, 2013)

Moonglow said:


> *How many* people did the Japanese occupation soldiers kill, rape, torture, mutilate and force to work until they dropped and then were killed over the 35 years of Japanese aggression and domination?



*far more than the alleged 6 million jews that Hitler was blamed for *


----------



## Zona (Aug 5, 2013)

Wildman said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > *How many* people did the Japanese occupation soldiers kill, rape, torture, mutilate and force to work until they dropped and then were killed over the 35 years of Japanese aggression and domination?
> ...



So.......how many was he responsible for putting to death if not at lease six million?


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Aug 5, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> > Remember Pearl Harbor. You get what you deserve.
> ...



Nope. It was ending a war they started and weren't ready to give up on. That is until we forced them to give up.

We didn't start the war but had the balls to finish it. They got what they deserved.


----------



## Wildman (Aug 5, 2013)

Zona said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



is that a question from an ignorant person ?

or

is it a question from a smartass ?

or

is it possible i do not understand the question ?


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Agreed, and also may have had an even more important effect. Stating what the power of the nuclear bomb could do, and actually seeing the results are two very differant things. The rules of all out war changed that day. Every nation could fool itself into thinking, as Germany did, that it could defend it's cities, and take x amount of damage from the planes that did get through. But now it was one bomb, one city. No real defense.
> 
> I think those two aspects of the nuclear bombing of Japan prevented WW3. No matter how you cut it, no winners in such a war.



I think Truman also wanted a bit of revenge.  Deep inside he was thinking "fuck em'", which I have no problem with.  They got what they deserved at the time.  Now is a different time.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

AzMike said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...



"They" meaning all those civilians who were killed in the atomic bombings?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

Wildman said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > *How many* people did the Japanese occupation soldiers kill, rape, torture, mutilate and force to work until they dropped and then were killed over the 35 years of Japanese aggression and domination?
> ...




You've got the wrong thread. The conspiracy forum is thataway. >


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

AzMike said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...




When you say "Remember Pearl Harbor. You get what you deserve," that's sure what it sounds like.


----------



## deltex1 (Aug 6, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> 68 years ago today, on August 5, 1945, a single B-29 bomber dropped a single uranium bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. 80,000 Japanese people were killed, and no Americans. By the end of 1945, approx. 30,000 more Japanese had died from injuries, starvations, and radiation.
> 
> Three days later, on August 8, a plutonium bomb was caried to Kobe, Japan. But the city was hidden by clouds, so the plane turned and flew to the alternate target, Nagasaki, and dropped it there instead. 50,000 people died from the explosion, with 20,000 more dying within a few months.
> 
> The bombing help end the war quickly, made an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary, and saved millions of Japanese and American casualties that would have died in such an invasion.



A lesson learned and soon forgotten.  There are ways to get people's attention when all rational attempts fail.


----------



## editec (Aug 6, 2013)

It isn't like we didn't know how powerful that bomb would be.

They dropped it because they were sick of the war and just wanted it to end.

Terrible as it was, I do not in any way fault Truman for using the bombs.

Knowing what we know now about nuclear weapons and their long term consequences, of course, using them now would not get the same pass as I'm giving to Truman.


----------



## deltex1 (Aug 6, 2013)

editec said:


> It isn't like we didn't know how powerful that bomb would be.
> 
> They dropped it because they were sick of the war and just wanted it to end.
> 
> ...




Are you sick of the WOT and what the gentle approach is costing us?  Find the epicenter...warn them...no response...disappear them.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 6, 2013)

little-acorn said:


> 68 years ago today, on august 5, 1945, a single b-29 bomber dropped a single uranium bomb on the city of hiroshima, japan. 80,000 japanese people were killed, and no americans. By the end of 1945, approx. 30,000 more japanese had died from injuries, starvations, and radiation.
> 
> Three days later, on august 8, a plutonium bomb was caried to kobe, japan. But the city was hidden by clouds, so the plane turned and flew to the alternate target, nagasaki, and dropped it there instead. 50,000 people died from the explosion, with 20,000 more dying within a few months.
> 
> The bombing help end the war quickly, made an invasion of the japanese home islands unnecessary, and saved millions of japanese and american casualties that would have died in such an invasion.



*-boom-*


----------



## theHawk (Aug 6, 2013)

There is no one to blame for the deaths of all the "civilians" killed by the atomic bombs except the Japanese leaders that refused to surrender.

Before the first bomb was dropped, the Japanese had been beaten in the Pacific, but their derranged leaders wouldn't except reality.  They firmly believed they were a superior race and there was no one they could lose agains America.  The US warned Japan, but it refused to surrender.  Even after the first bomb was dropped, they still refused to surrender.  

And by the way, both sites were major industrial and military sites that fueled Japan's war machine.


----------



## bendog (Aug 6, 2013)

Gave us the Wolverine too.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> So, deliberately killing all those civilians was an act of revenge?



Nope. As I said, it was a way to end the war quickly, without killing the millions who would have died in an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

You really should read the thread before asking what the thread says.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> A lesson learned and soon forgotten.




What was "soon forgotten" and by whom?


----------



## deltex1 (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > A lesson learned and soon forgotten.
> ...



That we are the super power...who fight like we are the Red Cross...forgotten by everyone in the pussyfied world of progtard sensibility.


----------



## editec (Aug 6, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't like we didn't know how powerful that bomb would be.
> ...



I'm  having my doubts about the whole issue of "terrorism" Del.

But if it were true, and if we could find its epicenter, then yes I'd want it wiped out.

I would not approve of going after anybody with nukes though.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 6, 2013)

Zona said:


> Now,  they are healthier, better educated and live longer than Americans. Technologically they kick our asses as well.



Meh!  The Japanese are great copycats.  Technology comes from others.  They copied the Germans to make better (some) cameras.  They copied Europeans and Americans to make better (some) cars.  They are really good at copying others, but not so good at coming up with the idea first.

The Japanese are essentially very frugal, very hard working, very meticulous, very nationalistic copycats.

Their frugality cost them a lot of pilots as their Zeros were similar to flying Coke cans...no armor.


edit:
68 years ago today, I was 2 years old, playin' in black gumbo mud when it rained...


----------



## Spoonman (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



if thats the case i say, remember the alamo and lets nuke mexico


----------



## R.C. Christian (Aug 6, 2013)

The intentionally spared Hiroshima from conventional bombs in order to maximize the effect and study the data which is s very cold, and calculated reasoning whether or not one believes it should have been done.


----------



## Spoonman (Aug 6, 2013)

asaratis said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Now,  they are healthier, better educated and live longer than Americans. Technologically they kick our asses as well.
> ...



but think about this. while they may have copied they developed methods to make it more efficiently and with better quality. what is sad is that someone can produce our ideas better then we can.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 6, 2013)

R.C. Christian said:


> The intentionally spared Hiroshima from conventional bombs in order to maximize the effect and study the data which is s very cold, and calculated reasoning whether or not one believes it should have been done.



I have been to Peace Park where the dome skeleton still stands.  It was close enough to the bomb drop point that the force was essentially downward and did not wipe the building off its foundation as happened to those farther away.


----------



## Crackerjaxon (Aug 6, 2013)

Yes, let's celebrate the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Dante's Ghost: Remembering Hiroshima. Thomas Merton and the Original Child Bomb


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 6, 2013)

The A-bombs did indeed save millions of lives unless we just decided to stop fightng the war.  By fighting Germany and Italy to unconditional surrender, by bringing Japan to unconditional surrender, we were able to make some of the world's most viscious and dangerous enemies into peaceful friends, assets instead of threats to the world community.

The knowledge to build the bomb was out there and that knowledge cannot now ever be taken back.  Us perfecting a usable weapon and using it first, however, for a specific and prudent purpose, did not cease its production.  But it  was so graphic an illustration of its power and deadly potential that no nation has presumed to use one since.

Paying the price to force aggressive nations into complee submission, unconditional surrender, has netted great benefits both for those nations and the world.

Since WWII we have won no wars.  We simply at some point stop fighting them.  And in every single case we have left less than friendly nations in the wake.   But we Americans seem to have a tough time even relating our history to current realities, much less learn from it.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 6, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> asaratis said:
> 
> 
> > Zona said:
> ...


As I said, Japanese workers are very frugal, very hard working, very meticulous, very nationalistic...unlike the American labor union members...greedy, lazy, sloppy and out for themselves.  That is ONE of several reasons why the Japanese do things better.


----------



## asaratis (Aug 6, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Yes, let's celebrate the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people.
> 
> Dante's Ghost: Remembering Hiroshima. Thomas Merton and the Original Child Bomb


You fail to acknowledge that the deaths of tens of thousands of Japanese people kept millions from dying in an invasion of the Japanese mainland and bloody warfare that would have followed.  Your density is exceeding great.


----------



## R.C. Christian (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm not sure celebration would be how I'd describe it. Perhaps respect for the dead and those that had their eyeballs fall out.


----------



## Spoonman (Aug 6, 2013)

asaratis said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > asaratis said:
> ...



couldn't agree with you more on those points.


----------



## deltex1 (Aug 6, 2013)

editec said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



My theory is that there is a financial epicenter existing in a nation state that finances Islamo terrorism.  Could be Iran could be Saudi Arabia ...I think we know.  We need to tell them the game is over...one way or another.


----------



## editec (Aug 6, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...



Actually its the WORLD OF FINANCE that make me dubious that the story we're getting about Islamo-terrorism is even real, Del.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Aug 6, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Yes, let's celebrate the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people.
> 
> Dante's Ghost: Remembering Hiroshima. Thomas Merton and the Original Child Bomb



At the time, it was the best way to go, and no doubt saved more lives in the long run.


----------



## legaleagle_45 (Aug 6, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Yes, let's celebrate the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people.



It is only "needless" if you consider the deaths of 100's of thousands more that were saved because Japan surrendered in August of 1945 to be of no consequence.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...




So...you would like us to specifically target civilians then? Where and how would that advance our interests in the conflicts that face us?


----------



## bodecea (Aug 6, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...



So..we should remind people we are the Supah Powah by nuking a few here and there?


----------



## Spoonman (Aug 6, 2013)

bodecea said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



today we play the politically correct game, call them freedom fighters and give them millions of dollars in aid to blow themselves up.


----------



## BlindBoo (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Wasn't seen as that much different than firebombing raids.

Do you know the estimate of the numbers of civilians that would have been killed had we been force to invade their main island?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 6, 2013)

BlindBoo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...



The cost was very high as is the case of all war.  War is perhaps the single most stupid act of humankind, but as a very wise man once said, ""And you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places."

If we must fight a war, overwhelming force to keep it short, sweet, and decisive, despite heavy collateral loss, is far more merciful than dragging it out over many months, years, even decades in which millions will die, be injured, be maimed.  I wonder how many thousands/millions have died unnecessarily because of the politically correct demand to fight wars without killing anybody?

The use of the A-bombs was far more merciful than a land invasion or months of carpet bombing would have been.


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Aug 6, 2013)

Once again it appears we need to keep an eye on Japan...the Communist Party is on the rise despite the fact that Abe Shinzo was reelected.....and that he plans to create a more 'business friendly' atmosphere...

Abe plans to prime the pump with nuclear power and a renewed push to build up Japans military forces...

once upon a time Japan could rely upon the US for protection from Russia, China, and NOrth Korea.....but with Obama in office the trust isn't there like it used to be...



> The Japanese Communist Party, by gaining five more seats in the upper house in the July 21 vote, is positioned to become the head of the opposition to Abe. The number one opposition party, Democratic Party of Japan, lost 27 seats, continuing its downward slide in the polls.
> 
> Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Japanese Communism on the Rise ? Tokyo to Re-Arm


----------



## g5000 (Aug 6, 2013)

Zona said:


> Wildman said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...



Hitler was a leftie.  And from that it follows that Hitler did not kill any Jews.  He loved Jews, like all lefties do...

Jews were responsible for communism.  Hitler knew that.  He convinced a lot of Germans this was true.  And since he was a leftie commie lover, why would he hurt the Jews?  That would make no sense at all.

QED.


----------



## g5000 (Aug 6, 2013)

ScreamingEagle said:


> Once again it appears we need to keep an eye on Japan...the Communist Party is on the rise despite the fact that Abe Shinzo was reelected.....and that he plans to create a more 'business friendly' atmosphere...
> 
> Abe plans to prime the pump with nuclear power and a renewed push to build up Japans military forces...
> 
> ...





The Japanese Communist Party has been steadily declining, receiving smaller and smaller percentages of votes.


They have 11 out of 241 seats in the House of Councillors, compared to 113 seats held by Abe's party.

The Democratic Party has 58 seats. The New Komeito party has 20 seats.  The Your Party has 18 seats.

So to call the JCP the "head of the opposition" is to bloviate from one's ass.  What kind of rag are you reading?


----------



## bendog (Aug 6, 2013)

But they make such bloody good cameras.  (Mandrake is Dr. Strangelove)


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Aug 6, 2013)

g5000 said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > Once again it appears we need to keep an eye on Japan...the Communist Party is on the rise despite the fact that Abe Shinzo was reelected.....and that he plans to create a more 'business friendly' atmosphere...
> ...



they doubled their numbers in the House of Councilors.....a significant gain in the upper house for one of the smaller parties.....and they are growing even more in local elections....of course they will oppose any re-arming of Japan...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 6, 2013)

Better the bomb than an invasion.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

asaratis said:


> Zona said:
> 
> 
> > Now,  they are healthier, better educated and live longer than Americans. Technologically they kick our asses as well.
> ...



Top 10 Japanese Inventions | Japan Inc


Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists


----------



## deltex1 (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



We should warn the nation states that fund terrorism to cease and desist.  If they refuse make an example of one of them...the rest should get the message.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Aug 6, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> 68 years ago today, on August 5, 1945, a single B-29 bomber dropped a single uranium bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. 80,000 Japanese people were killed, and no Americans. By the end of 1945, approx. 30,000 more Japanese had died from injuries, starvations, and radiation.
> 
> Three days later, on August 8, a plutonium bomb was caried to Kobe, Japan. But the city was hidden by clouds, so the plane turned and flew to the alternate target, Nagasaki, and dropped it there instead. 50,000 people died from the explosion, with 20,000 more dying within a few months.
> 
> The bombing help end the war quickly, made an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary, and saved millions of Japanese and American casualties that would have died in such an invasion.




nagasaki replaced kyoto on the target list and was the alternate target to *kokura*. kokura was hidden in smoke and clouds. so nagasaki was bombed.


----------



## RoadVirus (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> > Remember Pearl Harbor. You get what you deserve.
> ...



It was either that or watch as a couple hundred thousand more American servicemen come home in a bag while attempting to take the Japanese mainland.


----------



## Edgetho (Aug 6, 2013)

BlindBoo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...



Very true.  We wouldn't have stormed ashore like idiots waiting to be gunned down by suicidal Japanese.

We would have blockaded the Island for Months and hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Japanese civilians would have died.

The Japanese have no natural resources to speak of, they can't grow enough food to feed themselves, not even close.  

It was kinder to nuke 'em.

All this was started by a raid on Pearl Harbor where 2,386 Americans were killed and a few ships sunk.

We nuked Japan for what they did at Pearl Harbor





Kinda looks like Dee-troit

Still just the 2nd worst attack on American Soil in our entire history.

This-- 







killed 2,996 people.  Innocent people.  Not Soldiers.....Women, children, babies.


And some want us to pick up and leave SW Asia because their pussies hurt or something?

Probably the same people who believe the 'Truther' bullshit...







Look!!  I think I can see George Bush in his Flight Suit piloting that CIA Airplane!!


----------



## Edgetho (Aug 6, 2013)

One more, just for fun....

Our people who want to run away from SW Asia because they feel some kind of concern for...  Something.  I don't know what.  Something.

I want you to put yourselves in the place of these men and women in the picture below and tell me what was going through their minds at that very time.






Now I want you to tell me again about how you want to leave SW Asia because you have a pussy rash or something.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

asaratis said:


> Crackerjaxon said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, let's celebrate the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people.
> ...




Regardless of how one views Truman's ultimate decision, the atomic bomb or massive invasion were not the only two possible options.


----------



## g5000 (Aug 6, 2013)

Crackerjaxon said:


> Yes, let's celebrate the needless deaths of tens of thousands of people.



And every one of those deaths is on Emperor Showa's (Hirohito) head.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

deltex1 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > deltex1 said:
> ...



Make an example of who? Their leaders? Their military? The civilian population?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

RoadVirus said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...




Those were not the only two possible options.


----------



## g5000 (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



All together now!  _Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran..._

We have an infinite supply of soldiers who never wear out, dontcha know.  We build 'em in the Pentagon basement, and they can do nine, ten, eleven tours of combat duty and never tire or suffer PTSD.


----------



## Vox (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



maybe. but they were the fastest and the most live saving.


----------



## g5000 (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



True.  We could have surrendered to Japan.  Let them keep all the land areas they conquered.  Rewarded them for their actions.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> RoadVirus said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


All of which would have resulted in more dead Japanese civilians than the bombs did.


----------



## plant (Aug 6, 2013)

National Naval Aviation Museum


Final pages of the log book of Lieutenant (junior grade) Raymond Porter noting that he and his gunner, Aviation Radioman Third Class Normand Brissette, crashed during a strike against Kure Harbor in Japan. Taken prisoner by the Japanese, the Bombing Squadron (VB) 87 personnel were held captive in Hiroshima, where they died as the result of the atomic bomb dropped on the city on August 6, 1945, sixty-eight years ago today.


----------



## regent (Aug 6, 2013)

No debate-just a memory. 
I was going home, my transportation was the navy hospital ship "Bountiful." (Anyone on that voyage?)  The war was still going on and my division was still in combat on Luzon. We left New Guinea and a short time later the ship announced the dropping of the first bomb on Hiroshima. Then began the surrender rumors, then a second bomb. Surrender was in  everyone's thoughts, and finally came the surrender. 
As the "Bountiful" plodded on the radio talked of the stateside parties, the joyous crowds, the happy girls.  Finally we arrived at the Golden Gate and it was as if there had been no war; some  flights of navy Hellcats buzzed the ship welcoming us home.  
The one thing that I remember most of that final voyage was when the surrender was announced and it seemed real the ship was silent. No cheering, no demonstrations, no ship's whistles tooting, no jumping for joy, just silence.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

g5000 said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...




Thanks for that stupid comment.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



We'll never know that, of course.


----------



## Zona (Aug 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Agreed, and also may have had an even more important effect. Stating what the power of the nuclear bomb could do, and actually seeing the results are two very differant things. The rules of all out war changed that day. Every nation could fool itself into thinking, as Germany did, that it could defend it's cities, and take x amount of damage from the planes that did get through. But now it was one bomb, one city. No real defense.
> 
> I think those two aspects of the nuclear bombing of Japan prevented WW3. No matter how you cut it, no winners in such a war.



48 years ago, they finally allowed anyone to vote no matter what race they are as well.

Fucking 48 years ago, blacks couldn't vote.  That is a long way to a black man being the president.  

Go Obama.  Even though so much has changed, there is still so much shit engrained in peoples heads.  Slavery was a long long time ago, but tell me things have not resignated in peoples minds.  Yes, slavery had something to do with it only being 48 years ago that certain people couldnt vote, sit and eat where they wanted, get hired, get housing etc etc.

Greatest country in the world...


----------



## Friends (Aug 6, 2013)

UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)

WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1946

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey was established by the Secretary of War on 3 November 1944, pursuant to a directive from the late President Roosevelt. It was established for the purpose of conducting an impartial and expert study of the effects of our aerial attack on Germany, to be used in connection with air attacks on Japan and to establish a basis for evaluating air power as an instrument of military strategy, for planning the future development of the United States armed forces, and for determining future economic policies with respect to the national defense. A summary report and some 200 supporting reports containing the findings of the Survey in Germany have been published. On 15 August 1945, President Truman requested the Survey to conduct a similar study of the effects of all types of air attack in the war against Japan...

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War)


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Don't ever cut my quotes short in desperation to make your point. You quote the entire thing or f*cking nothing. The only need for you to cut my quote short is you don't have the fortitude or the logic to refute it.

Japan wanted a war. They attacked Pearl Harbor in order to drag us into it with the full intention of kicking our *sses and taking over whatever portion of the US they possibly could. In the end they not only got nuked but they got beat so f*cking handily they have never since been a world power militarily.

They picked a fight and got exactly what they asked for in return. Their citizens jumped into the fray just like ours did and yes they were targets to be exterminated. They got the first punch we won devastatingly, f*ck off. They not only earned it they asked for it. Don't pick a fight if you can't handle being knocked out.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 6, 2013)

AzMike said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...



I'll address whatever part of your stupidity I feel like, douchebag. Deal with it. Japan's goal in WWII wasn't to take over America, it was to push us out of Asia so Japan could fulfill its exceedingly impractical and misleading vision  of a "Co-prosperity Sphere" in East Asia. Don't bother posting if you're going to be an ignorant shit, and don't bother commenting on a difficult moral question if you are an amoral animal at best.


----------



## Zona (Aug 6, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RoadVirus said:
> ...



You know this how?


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Aug 6, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


No, you will take my entire quote and f*cking deal with it the best your tiny mind is capable of processing.

Japan was part of the Axis power who's entire goal was the defeat of western philosophy of capitalism and freedom in favor of government rule. Japan's one entry into this alliance was to get the US into the war. That was their job. And it f*cking worked. We got in and they all lost. Because at the time we apparently had animals like me that would choose to win by any means necessary and not c*nt's like you.

How much f*cking stupid am I going to have to deal with from you? I don't have all day here.


----------



## regent (Aug 6, 2013)

Germany and Japan were not the same. Japanese culture had Bushido, and many Japanese followed that code. How many German soldiers would cut their bellies open rather than surrender? Another difference was the emperor. We offered Germany only unconditional surrender and Germany took it, but with Japan it meant, what about the emperor? Could America offer Japan terms, terms agreed upon by both America and Japan to surrender? What  would have been the American people or the Republican party's response to that? But, of course Truman eventually did keep the emperor but still tried to make it sound like unconditional surrender. Even Hirohito had to make his wishes to surrender twice to the military before Japan surrendered.


----------



## gipper (Aug 7, 2013)

Sadly the a-bombing of Japan was the most disgraceful day in American history.  A fool, Truman, purposely incinerated old men, women and children primarily because of his racist views of the Japanese and to impress histories greatest murderer, Uncle Joe.  The war was over.  Japan was done and had been trying to surrender for years.  

Uncle Joe must have had a big laugh...from Old Harry thinking murdering innocents would impress him and force him to stop the Red Army hordes from continuing their rape, murder, and pillage of E. Europe.

But, the statists continue to promote the lie that the a-bombing was necessary to force Japan to surrender and avoid 500,000 additional American casualties to conqueror the main islands.

Very sad day for America.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

AzMike said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...




Guess again, kid. Go study a little history before shooting your mouth off.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

regent said:


> Germany and Japan were not the same. Japanese culture had Bushido, and many Japanese followed that code. How many German soldiers would cut their bellies open rather than surrender? .




Commit suicide rather than surrender? You mean like Hitler did?


----------



## editec (Aug 7, 2013)

Zona said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



*Conjecture* based on how the Japanese soldier and civilians acted when the Americans took over the Okinawa.

Battle of Okinawa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## regent (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Germany and Japan were not the same. Japanese culture had Bushido, and many Japanese followed that code. How many German soldiers would cut their bellies open rather than surrender? .
> ...



Hitler was not the average German soldier. The average German soldier surrendered as did American and British soldiers. If a soldier surrendered, the Japanese did not consider the individual to be a soldier any longer and it accounts for some Japanese treatment of the prisoners they held. The banzai suicidal charges were another effect of Bushido as was their reluctance to surrender even after they had lost the war by all European standards.


----------



## namvet (Aug 7, 2013)

the IJA murdered over 4,200,000 Japanese


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




WWII officer who said 'nuts' to Germans dies - US news - Military | NBC News


----------



## regent (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



There are individual soldiers in most armies that do more than the average soldier and for those we know of, they are on occasion given a a decoration. Not all GI's said nuts, when asked to surrender, many Americans surrendered during the Bulge as did many Germans. 
But as some of the awardees discovered the award is sometimes tainted with politics.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

plant said:


> National Naval Aviation Museum
> Final pages of the log book of Lieutenant (junior grade) Raymond Porter noting that he and his gunner, Aviation Radioman Third Class Normand Brissette, crashed during a strike against Kure Harbor in Japan. Taken prisoner by the Japanese, the Bombing Squadron (VB) 87 personnel were held captive in Hiroshima, where they died as the result of the atomic bomb dropped on the city on August 6, 1945, sixty-eight years ago today.


"There is many a boy here today who looks on war as all glory, but, boys, it is all hell"
W.T. Sherman, 4-11-1880


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Thank you for your non-response.

Fact is that all of the other options meant the extension of the war, with additional incendiary raids on Japanese cities, burning them and their people to the ground, and blockades of their sea lanes, deprving their japanese people of food and fuel.

It doesn't matter of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by 1 plane or a thousand - their destriction was certain, and their people were going to die.  Dropping the bombs brought the surrender and saved many, many lives.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Zona said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, and also may have had an even more important effect. Stating what the power of the nuclear bomb could do, and actually seeing the results are two very differant things. The rules of all out war changed that day. Every nation could fool itself into thinking, as Germany did, that it could defend it's cities, and take x amount of damage from the planes that did get through. But now it was one bomb, one city. No real defense.
> ...


I see you failed your US history classes.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Friends said:


> Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
> United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War)


At the cost of how many more Japanese and American lives than ending the war when it did?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...



Notice how you have to keep qualifying your responses more and more? Do you see why?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




Not necessarily.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Yes, necessarily.
Disagree?  
Tell us why the Japanese would have announced their surrender on 8/15, had the bombs not been dropped?
Oh wait...  you can't.

And so, the war would have continued.
With continued bombing raids and a continued blockade.
Dropping the bombs brought the surrender sooner rather than later and saved many, many lives. 
No way to soundly argue otherwise.


----------



## regent (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



I hope I qualify my responses. 
It is difficult to make a lot of hard and fast rules regarding individual behavior. Social Scientists discovered this with the famous Western Electric Experiment years ago.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




Go put words into someone else's mouth. Sure I can. If we had been engaged in negotiations (for which elements within the Japanese government had been sending out feelers for some time) for a less than unconditional surrender, then the shooting war might have ended before then. Was this likely? Would the American public have gone for it? Would it have been the right decision to even try? I don't know. We can't know for sure, because the only thing we _do_ know for sure is what actually happened.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




It seems you misunderstand the word as it was used in the context above.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


We weren't.  Fail.
Please try again.  
This time, please try to stick with the conditions actually in place at the time instead what might have been if things were different before then.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You asked me to speculate, fool.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Yes.  Given the conditions actually in place at the time.

As I said:  you cannot tell us why the Japanese would have announced their surrender on 8/15, had the bombs not been dropped.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Questions to ask yourself:
Do you think that if the USAAF had sent 1000 planes to incinerate Hiroshima/Nagasaki, fewer people would have died?
Do you think that if the USAAF had sent 1000 planes to incinerate Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the Japanese would have sued for peace on August 14?
Please be sure to support your responses with something substantive.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Aug 7, 2013)

My father waded ashore at Omaha beach and slogged his way across Europe.  When he was done, he and his division was rounded up and was to be moved onto ships for a trip half-way around the world, where he would have been one of the lucky ones to wade ashore onto the island of Japan.  Thankfully, before they had the chance the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki.

My father may have made it through an invasion or he may not have.  But I can tell you that he talked of that time with a thankfullness to President Truman who made that unnecessary.  The dropping of the atomic weapons were horrible and it killed many, many innocent Japanese.  Like what happened in Nanking, and the Phillipines, and Hawaii, and Burma and the list goes on and on.  But it was necessary and it was appropriate and it may have SAVED up to several hundred thousand GI's.

To judge a character from history using todays sensibilities and logic is fool-hearty and ridiculous.  The Japanese were willing to use 5 million civilians and march them onto the beaches where the landings were going to take place.  Many, many more innocents would have died...


----------



## regent (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



Are you now down to this, I misunderstand what you meant. So enlighten me how did you intend the word to be used?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Aug 7, 2013)

All this talk of f*cking and *sses and c*nts is getting me hot.


----------



## gipper (Aug 7, 2013)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> My father waded ashore at Omaha beach and slogged his way across Europe.  When he was done, he and his division was rounded up and was to be moved onto ships for a trip half-way around the world, where he would have been one of the lucky ones to wade ashore onto the island of Japan.  Thankfully, before they had the chance the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki.
> 
> My father may have made it through an invasion or he may not have.  But I can tell you that he talked of that time with a thankfullness to President Truman who made that unnecessary.  The dropping of the atomic weapons were horrible and it killed many, many innocent Japanese.  Like what happened in Nanking, and the Phillipines, and Hawaii, and Burma and the list goes on and on.  But it was necessary and it was appropriate and it may have SAVED up to several hundred thousand GI's.
> 
> To judge a character from history using todays sensibilities and logic is fool-hearty and ridiculous.  The Japanese were willing to use 5 million civilians and march them onto the beaches where the landings were going to take place.  Many, many more innocents would have died...



I thought as you do, but I learned the truth. 

My father was also in Europe preparing for departure to Japan prior to the surrender.  So, I too thought the a-bombs were necessary to end the war and stop further blood letting.  Problem is when you research it, the truth is entirely different from what we thought and were taught.  

Here are several links you should find enlightening, but also most disheartening.  The a-bombing is one of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.  
Left-Liberal Catholics: Yay for the Atomic Bombings! | Tom Woods
The Ethics of War: Hiroshima and Nagasaki After 50 Years : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education
The War Criminal Harry Truman ?
http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&key=094bb1ea0292b5c3802f0e3229a668fd&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofpolitics.com%2Fthreads%2F67-years-ago-yesterday.15574%2Fpage-2&v=1&libId=4cbd50ea-1267-48bc-8785-f77d6dfbfadb&out=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Fscholar%2Fseverance.pdf&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.houseofpolitics.com%2Fthreads%2F67-years-ago-yesterday.15574%2Fpage-3&title=67%20years%20ago%20yesterday%20%7C%20Page%202%20%7C%20House%20Of%20Politics%20Forum&txt=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Fscholar%2Fseverance.pdf&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13759027443346
The Hiroshima Myth ?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

gipper said:


> The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.


Based on...what?
Compared to... what?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2013)

gipper said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> > My father waded ashore at Omaha beach and slogged his way across Europe.  When he was done, he and his division was rounded up and was to be moved onto ships for a trip half-way around the world, where he would have been one of the lucky ones to wade ashore onto the island of Japan.  Thankfully, before they had the chance the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki.
> ...



You do realize that post WWII, and with the rise of Progressivism/Leftism/modern American Liberalism in the USA that came into full bloom in the 1960's and beyond, there has been a whole cult of anti-American sentiment determined to dismantle and rewrite U.S. history.   Aided, abetted, and encouraged by leftwing academia, many master's thesis and dissertations have been written into works as you linked.  I could find ten sources to rebut each one of your sources, but I don't have the time or inclination to hunt them up.

But this writer has it right (emphasis mine):



> Sixty-five years ago today, the United States and the Allies did what was unthinkable, but necessary.
> 
> Yes, the nation had blood on its hands, but it was an act of war and war begets blood.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Aug 7, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.
> ...



Probably based on the number of civilian deaths that other military actions during the war at least made attempts to avoid. Whatever necessity our chain of command assessed for such a measure, it might be a appropriate to at least acknowledge the tragedy. Killing 200,000 civilians in one fell swoop carries with it a moral price, I don't care what the justification is. Whether it qualifies as the among the most immoral act committed in all of human history is debatable, but not ridiculous to suggest.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


In 1945, the USAAF burned Japanese cities to the ground, nightly, without regard to the well-being of Japanese civilians - a lot more area was destroyed and a lot more civilians were killed in these raids than the atom bomb drops  - so, how is that a meaningful basis for this judgement?



> Whatever necessity our chain of command assessed for such a measure, it might be a appropriate to at least acknowledge the tragedy. Killing 200,000 civilians in one fell swoop carries with it a moral price....


How does killing 200,000 civilians with two aircraft differ morally from killing 200,000 civilins with 2,000 aircraft?


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Aug 7, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



It doesn't, but as a single act there is certainly a difference in magnitude. I'm not accusing you in particular, but there seems to be a reluctance among some to acknowledge the tragedy of those bombings in the haste justify them. There are arguments that justify the bombings. There is also a moral price. That is war.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Jam said:
> ...


In terms of what?
Efficacy of action has a bearing on moral price?

It seems to me that few, if any, of the people who gripe about the nuclear bombings pay any attention at all to the conventional bombings - they shand in horror that we dropped nukes, but don't blink an eye at the thermite, napalm and HE that killed far  more people and destroyed a far greater area.


----------



## gipper (Aug 7, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > The a-bombing[s are two] of the most immoral acts ever committed in all of human history.
> ...



Read the links and educate yourself.  

In short, killing innocents for no good reason (and worse for nefarious reasons, which were the reasons Truman used), is ALWAYS immoral and something ALL Americans should condemn.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2013)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Jimmy_Jam said:
> ...



Yes.  Every decision we make from euthanizing a beloved pet because we cannot afford to restore him to health to eating meat from slaughtered animals to serving on a jury that will send a person to prison or cause him to be sentenced to death, to how we choose to spend and use our time, energy, abilities, and private resources all exacts a moral price.  

To choose to defend yourself and/or your loved ones or others from a person or beast intent on doing them harm exacts a moral price.

To accept your country's call to train to kill and pick up a weapon of war exacts a moral price.   To kill or be killed is a moral choice.

To choose to walk away from a crippled Japan still our enemy or bludgeon them into submission and unconditional surrender was a moral choice.   To choose to kill many unconventionally rather than the almost certainty of killing many more via conventional means was a moral choice.

Given the limited alternatives we had, given the fact that the Japanese people are now a wholly independent, peaceful, prosperous nation that are friends with the world rather than oppressor, given that killing the many almost certainly saved millions in blood as well as treasure, and given that the demonstration has meant no nuclear weapons used in anger now for almost seven decades, I have to believe we made the right choice.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

gipper said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


"Look it up" neither supports your statement nor answers my questions.
Lay it out for me and quote the relevant sections from your sources.



> In short, killing innocents for no good reason (and worse for nefarious reasons, which were the reasons Truman used), is ALWAYS immoral and something ALL Americans should condemn.


I see.
So, your statement hinges on your interpretation of 'a good reason".  
Soundly argue that the nuclear bombings were morally worse than the conventional firebombings that took place throughout the 8 months prior.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 7, 2013)

gipper said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



I did.  And provided you a reasoned rebuttal.  Which you ignored.  Here:  
http://www.usmessageboard.com/history/306698-68-years-ago-today-6.html#post7654525


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




I already answered your question, fool. No game time for you.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...




To modify or limit, like the way you kept changing yours every time your premise was proven untrue.


----------



## regent (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



To say that all people use the same behavior patterns could well be wrong so we qualify, and I qualified some responses to indicate I didn't believe all people  behaved or believed the  the same way. So what premise or premises did I use that  were proved to be untrue?


----------



## Missouri_Mike (Aug 7, 2013)

gipper said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...



Read this you moron. http://crossroads.alexanderpiela.com/files/Fussell_Thank_God_AB.pdf

It pretty much seals your existence as an uninformed fool.


----------



## namvet (Aug 7, 2013)

if he doesn't drop em he face's impeachment. period


----------



## regent (Aug 7, 2013)

Two questions and then a personal note:

1. Are civilians,  that produce war goods that are used to kill the enemy, legitimate targets? 
2. If those Japanese cities had cottage industries producing war materials were they     legitimate targets?

A personal Note. Actually, the war crime that made me the most upset was the Japanese beheading  of American prisoners because they were involved in B29 raids. Japanese officers loved to use their sabers. When Japan surrendered it was imperative that America get troops in there fast to protect their Prisoners.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 7, 2013)

regent said:


> Two questions and then a personal note:
> 
> 1. Are civilians,  that produce war goods that are used to kill the enemy, legitimate targets?
> 2. If those Japanese cities had cottage industries producing war materials were they     legitimate targets?
> ...



the factories are


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Good to see that we both know you cannot describe how or why the Japanese would have surrendered when they did, if not for the bombs.

No surrender = war continues.
War continues = firebombing continues
Firebombings continue = more and more and more and more Japanese civilians die.
No way to soundly argue otherwise - and you know it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 7, 2013)

regent said:


> Two questions and then a personal note:
> 1. Are civilians,  that produce war goods that are used to kill the enemy, legitimate targets?
> 2. If those Japanese cities had cottage industries producing war materials were they     legitimate targets?


In modern, total war, where civilans are part of the labor pool that creates the means to make war, civilians will die as said means are legitimate targets.  
No way around it.


----------



## namvet (Aug 7, 2013)

regent said:


> Two questions and then a personal note:
> 
> 1. Are civilians,  that produce war goods that are used to kill the enemy, legitimate targets?
> 2. If those Japanese cities had cottage industries producing war materials were they     legitimate targets?
> ...



Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. It was also a communications center, a storage point, an assembly area for troops, and was a military-industrial center powered by the mass-scale forced labour of Koreans known as hibakusha. The Hiroshima island of Edajima hosted the Navy Elite Academy. Kure, around 20 km from Hiroshima, was also known for a military port and navy factories. The famous giant warship, Yamato, was constructed in Kure. The material and labour for Kure came from Hiroshima. 

 Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and had wide-ranging industrial importance. Ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials were manufactured there. The Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works was located there. Mitsubishi produced over 10,000 Zero fighters and the battleship Musashi.

so both military targets


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




No, we both see you want to play games, and I see that you are not worth the time. We both know you don't have the horsepower for a real discussion and you are not a legitimate interlocutor. 

Go play somewhere else.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 7, 2013)

namvet said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Two questions and then a personal note:
> ...





So, in every German city where there might be a munitions factory or such we fire bombed the entire city with the specific goal of killing every civilian possible? I don't recall the fire bombing raids of Italy or the deliberate slaughter of civilians there to the highest degree possible, as completely as possible.


----------



## Friends (Aug 8, 2013)

AzMike said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > AzMike said:
> ...


 
Japanese militarism, Italian fascism, and Nazism were perfectly consistent with capitalism. Capitalism is not worth fighting for. The capitalists can hire private armies of goons if they want.


----------



## gipper (Aug 8, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



My posts and the links included from well known experts clearly make my point.  Sorry you can't see that.

And to your question, the firebombings were just as immoral.  Purposely killing innocents in war is wrong. American politicians like to claim we as a nation are morally right, but sadly, history shows their actions are often immoral in the extreme.


----------



## gipper (Aug 8, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Two questions and then a personal note:
> ...



So, if I can summarize your point...civilians are legitimate targets for destruction because they are forced by their tyrannical government to produce war goods.  

Most immoral.  

Put yourself in the shoes of those Japanese people.  Did they have a choice in supporting the actions of their tyrannical government or not?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 8, 2013)

Friends said:


> Capitalism is not worth fighting for. .





Well, that statement certainly fits the cowardly, ignorant image you've worked so hard to establish for yourself here.


----------



## Friends (Aug 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Capitalism is not worth fighting for. .
> ...


 
Fight for it yourself you putrid little scum.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 8, 2013)

Friends said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Friends said:
> ...




You prove yourself an ignorant little pussy on every thread you post on. You're pathetic.


----------



## namvet (Aug 8, 2013)

Photos:






link


----------



## Friends (Aug 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Friends said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...



How does it feel to look in the mirror and see the face of a sub human?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 8, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


All I see is you avoiding the task put to you, because you know you aren't up to it.
Says all that needs to be said.
Fool.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 8, 2013)

gipper said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Nothing here chamges these fact that "Look it up" neither supports your statement nor answers my questions.
So, again:
Lay it out for me and quote the relevant sections from your sources.



> And to your question, the firebombings were just as immoral.  Purposely killing innocents in war is wrong.


Given that it cannot be avoided, you'll simply have to llearn to live with the fact that, according to your sandard, war is inherently immoral.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 8, 2013)

The winners write the history books. Childhood propaganda is like a religious experience. We all have faith in Truman's decision because we have been indoctrinated. Truman was the living legacy to the FDR administration and nobody in the free world dares to criticize FDR. The mainstream made sure of it in the 4o's and since. Facts can be ignored when the history book writers want to play a political tune. It seems that Truman didn't have a clue. Even as Vice president he did not have access to the Atomic secret until he woke up one morning in April 1945. Truman was not equipped to make a critical decision about the use of a nuclear weapon and that was probably the plan of the democrat party when they selected the first president not to have a college education. The Japanese targets were civilians. God help us when the military strategy is to kill civilians in order to force a tyrannical regime to surrender but that's what we did.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 8, 2013)

gipper said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


Rather silly interpretation of my statement.
The means of production are legitimate targets, something even you will agree with.
Within those means of production are civilians.   As part of the efforts to destroy those means, there is no way to avoid the deaths of those civilains.
And, it matters not how/why those civilians are there - be they slave labor in a German ball bearing plant or Rosie the Riveter in a Kaiser shipyard.



> Most immoral.


I challenge you to soundly suppot this position.



> Put yourself in the shoes of those Japanese people.  Did they have a choice in supporting the actions of their tyrannical government or not?


Completely irrelevant to anythig I said.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 8, 2013)

Nagasaki marks 68th anniversary of atomic bombing ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 8, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> 68 years ago today, on August 5, 1945, a single B-29 bomber dropped a single uranium bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. 80,000 Japanese people were killed, and no Americans. By the end of 1945, approx. 30,000 more Japanese had died from injuries, starvations, and radiation.
> 
> Three days later, on August 8, a plutonium bomb was caried to Kobe, Japan. But the city was hidden by clouds, so the plane turned and flew to the alternate target, Nagasaki, and dropped it there instead. 50,000 people died from the explosion, with 20,000 more dying within a few months.
> 
> The bombing help end the war quickly, made an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary, and saved millions of Japanese and American casualties that would have died in such an invasion.



68 years ago



Spoiler: Nagasaki



*BOOM *


----------



## Friends (Aug 9, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The winners write the history books. Childhood propaganda is like a religious experience. We all have faith in Truman's decision because we have been indoctrinated. Truman was the living legacy to the FDR administration and nobody in the free world dares to criticize FDR. The mainstream made sure of it in the 4o's and since. Facts can be ignored when the history book writers want to play a political tune. It seems that Truman didn't have a clue. Even as Vice president he did not have access to the Atomic secret until he woke up one morning in April 1945. Truman was not equipped to make a critical decision about the use of a nuclear weapon and that was probably the plan of the democrat party when they selected *the first president not to have a college education*. The Japanese targets were civilians. God help us when the military strategy is to kill civilians in order to force a tyrannical regime to surrender but that's what we did.



Truman was a nitwit who started the Cold War, but Abraham Lincoln did not have a college education. I am sure there have been others.


----------



## gipper (Aug 9, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> gipper said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



We are debating the a-bombing and fire bombing of Japanese cities.  Are you claiming that all those terrible bombings were targeted at military facilities?  If so, you are not informed.  The American military used total war and purposely targeted civilians for destruction.  If you do not see that as immoral, then nothing is immoral.


----------



## regent (Aug 9, 2013)

Truman has been rated by historians in a number of different polls since 1962. His lowest rating was ninth best American president and his highest rating was fifth best American  president. The numbers vary because new presidents are added to the ratings, different groups rate and new evidence emerges. Still fifth to ninth best president of the United States out of 44 is not too bad.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 9, 2013)

There he goes again...


----------



## regent (Aug 9, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> There he goes again...



Nope it's the historians doing the ratings, I'm just conveying their rating results, but I have to admit I agree with them. Most patriotic, good American citizens cannot even name all the presidents, must less rate them. In addition most citizens rate the presidents on one criterion:  the party to which the president was beholden.


----------



## MaryL (Aug 9, 2013)

Here is a question: What if America refrained from using nuclear weapons, and instead, what if the American military starved  or pounded millions of Japanese into submission over a prolonged period. Of many years. What if many  more American servicemen died  securing Japan? Would that have been a better alternative?


----------



## MaryL (Aug 9, 2013)

Before the use and knowledge of nuclear weapons, there was a phrase here in the states ,something like "Tokyo by 48'" because Americans thought we would  be fighting well into  the Japanese homeland with  low tech, hand to hand fighting, costing god knows how many lives. Militarily or civilian. Given the fact Japan initiated this conflict, I am not seeing a problem using unconventional weapons to stop such a desperate power allied with NAZI Germany.  Japanese or the Germans at that time had no qualms targeting  people because  of race&#8230;.


----------



## namvet (Aug 9, 2013)

Translation of leaflet dropped on the Japanese, August 6, 1945. Miscellaneous Historical Documents Collection.


----------



## namvet (Aug 9, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Here is a question: What if America refrained from using nuclear weapons, and instead, what if the American military starved  or pounded millions of Japanese into submission over a prolonged period. Of many years. What if many  more American servicemen died  securing Japan? Would that have been a better alternative?



the army was already starving them. these civilians were nothing more than expendable assets to them


----------



## MaryL (Aug 9, 2013)

namvet said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> > Here is a question: What if America refrained from using nuclear weapons, and instead, what if the American military starved  or pounded millions of Japanese into submission over a prolonged period. Of many years. What if many  more American servicemen died  securing Japan? Would that have been a better alternative?
> ...



OK...Which army are you referring to? The Japanese were starving their own...and they  started the American involvement in WWII. These warmongers  didn't even spare their own. It's pathetic, they,  Japanese, created  kamikaze and expected their own to die  defending the homeland.  Sad to say the least.  The Hiroshima/Nagasaki attack was later a weak excuse to inspire the 9/11 attack on  innocent  Americans by whacko  nutcases looking  for justification....it is sad. Pathetic.


----------



## namvet (Aug 9, 2013)

MaryL said:


> namvet said:
> 
> 
> > MaryL said:
> ...



what other army was in Japan???


----------



## MaryL (Aug 9, 2013)

I support the use of the A-Bomb in Japan, bottom line.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2013)

gipper said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > gipper said:
> ...


Most, if not all, of the firebombing raids had a specific military target.  Fact of the matter is that the USAAF dscovered that the most effective way to take out these targets was low-level incendiary raids, rather than high-altitude precision HE raids, because of the nature of the targets, the area around them, and the negative effects of the jet stream on the preformanceof the B29 at altitude.



> *If you do not see that as immoral, then nothing is immoral.*


I challenged you to soundly support your position.
Your statement, bolded above, does not do that.
Feel free to try again.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Before the use and knowledge of nuclear weapons, there was a phrase here in the states ,something like "Tokyo by 48'" because Americans thought we would  be fighting well into  the Japanese homeland with  low tech, hand to hand fighting, costing god knows how many lives. Militarily or civilian. Given the fact Japan initiated this conflict, I am not seeing a problem using unconventional weapons to stop such a desperate power allied with NAZI Germany.  Japanese or the Germans at that time had no qualms targeting  people because  of race.


Fact of the matter is that absent our nuclear strikes, the war would have continued unabated, with a far greater loss of life on both sides - but especially on the side of the Japanese.

Forcing the surrender with nuclear weapons unquestionably saved more lives than it cost.


----------



## Indofred (Aug 10, 2013)

Little-Acorn said:


> 68 years ago today, on August 5, 1945, a single B-29 bomber dropped a single uranium bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan. 80,000 Japanese people were killed, and no Americans. By the end of 1945, approx. 30,000 more Japanese had died from injuries, starvations, and radiation.
> 
> Three days later, on August 8, a plutonium bomb was caried to Kobe, Japan. But the city was hidden by clouds, so the plane turned and flew to the alternate target, Nagasaki, and dropped it there instead. 50,000 people died from the explosion, with 20,000 more dying within a few months.
> 
> The bombing help end the war quickly, made an invasion of the Japanese home islands unnecessary, and saved millions of Japanese and American casualties that would have died in such an invasion.



I agree.
The bombs were terrible but the alternative was far worse.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Aug 10, 2013)

Foxfyre said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Whether it was the right choice or not certainly is and has been the debate ever since. I think your analysis here is a good one. My problem is with the black/white view of war. You don't seem to have it, so good on ya.

War has enormous amounts of gray area involved. It is impossible to engage in a large-scale war and not commit actions that are immoral. Contrary to the world view of many extremist conservatives, it is possible for an act to be immoral and still the right choice. 

Approximately 200,000 civilians were killed in those two bombings. There is a moral argument that killing children and/or unborn life is immoral. It stands to reason that, amongst 200,000 people, a number of them were children and pregnant women. By the reasoning that killing unborn life is immoral, then how is that not immoral? The simple answer is: that it is. There really is no denying it. But, as has been appropriately put, that is what happens in war.

However, in the black-and-white world that some live, these considerations seem at the most unimportant. That is sadly the case these days. After WWII, it was this acknowledgment of the immoral that prompted us the help both Japan and Germany rebuild and become prosperous nations. It is, IMHO, the lack of this acknowledgment that contributes to the fact that we don't do that anymore. Since WWII, when have we ever atoned for our military actions like that? No, since WWII our tendency is to engage in large-scale military operations and then, for the most part, abandon the civilians whose lives we affected, or at least we don't lend the kind of assistance we did to the Japanese and the Germans. 

So, the choice to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been the right one, but any refusal to acknowledge the tragedy and immorality of it is, IMHO, tragic itself.


----------



## regent (Aug 10, 2013)

MaryL said:


> Before the use and knowledge of nuclear weapons, there was a phrase here in the states ,something like "Tokyo by 48'" because Americans thought we would  be fighting well into  the Japanese homeland with  low tech, hand to hand fighting, costing god knows how many lives. Militarily or civilian. Given the fact Japan initiated this conflict, I am not seeing a problem using unconventional weapons to stop such a desperate power allied with NAZI Germany.  Japanese or the Germans at that time had no qualms targeting  people because  of race.



Actually, I think  the phrase was created by the Pacific GI's and went something like this: "Golden Gate in 48, breadline in 49."  There were a number of other differences in the ETO GI's and the Pacific GI's, the phrase dog face soldier applied to the ETO infantryman, but seldom used in the Pacific. In a way, two different wars. I think the German soldier was by far the better soldier, but he did surrender, and the Japanese soldier did not. The question was would that code used by the Japanese soldier hold true for the Japanese civilian?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Forcing the surrender with nuclear weapons unquestionably saved more lives than it cost.




Again, we can't know that. You just _need_ a simple answer to a complex question because you are a simpleton.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2013)

regent said:


> I think the German soldier was by far the better soldier, but he did surrender, and the Japanese soldier did not.




About 50,000 did, despite heavy propaganda that led most to believe they would be tortured and killed by Allied forces if they did so.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2013)

Jimmy_Jam said:


> After WWII, it was this acknowledgment of the immoral that prompted us the help both Japan and Germany rebuild and become prosperous nations.




That was not prompted by morality or feelings of guilt. It was simply in our own national interests.


----------



## Jimmy_Jam (Aug 10, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> Jimmy_Jam said:
> 
> 
> > After WWII, it was this acknowledgment of the immoral that prompted us the help both Japan and Germany rebuild and become prosperous nations.
> ...



I don't doubt for a moment that this was a factor.


----------



## regent (Aug 10, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > I think the German soldier was by far the better soldier, but he did surrender, and the Japanese soldier did not.
> ...



I don't think Europeans believed they would be killed or tortured by allied forces. The Europeans had accepted the idea of surrender by any and all forces for many years. 
Nor did the Japanese usually kill prisoners if all went well. The difference is that the Japanese believed one ceased to be a soldier if they surrendered. Real soldiers did not surrender but fought to the death, and that was the crux of the problem. Would we have to kill 4 million or so soldiers and how many civilians before the war was over, and what could we expect to lose?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2013)

regent said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...






That's what I implied in my post. Even so, giving up the fight was never considered laudable in 'the West' either. "Death before dishonor" is a 'Western' ethos as it is elsewhere.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2013)

regent said:


> would we have to kill 4 million or so soldiers and how many civilians before the war was over...?




no.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 10, 2013)

Complex issues elicit divided opinions.

Do you consider the A-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be war crimes? ? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion


----------



## regent (Aug 10, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > would we have to kill 4 million or so soldiers and how many civilians before the war was over...?
> ...



If only the planners for Operation Downfall had known that it would have saved a lot of time and effort.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 10, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Forcing the surrender with nuclear weapons unquestionably saved more lives than it cost.
> ...


All I see here is you continuing to avoid the task put to you because you know you are not up to it.
Fool.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 10, 2013)

They got pretty reckless with those things back then. Mark in on your calendar, March 11, 1958 the U.S. Air Force dropped an Atomic Bomb on Florence S.C. It left a big crater but apparently only a couple of chickens were killed. I guess they forgot to arm it.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I already answered your question and I already told you game time for you is over. You should go find something simpler to talk about; something more your speed.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


This is a lie, as you know you have not presented any sound reason why, absent the droppings of the bombs, the Japanese would have sued for peace on 8/14/45.
Thank you for continuing to avoid the task put to you because you know you are not up to it.
Fool.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 11, 2013)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




Again, yes I did answer your question, you dimwit. 

I have told you several times now that game time is over for you. Now run along little boy, you've become tiresome.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 11, 2013)

Unkotare said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


This is a lie, as you know you have not presented any sound reason why, absent the droppings of the bombs, the Japanese would have sued for peace on 8/14/45.
Disagree?
Copy/paste your response to that effect.
Fool.


----------

