# 0th anniversary of VJ Day: Thank the atomic bomb for saving millions of lives



## Little-Acorn (Aug 15, 2015)

Military planners estimated that the coming invasion of Japan in 1945-1946 would cost a quarter million Allied lives, plus several million Japanese military and civilian lives.

Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed almost no Allied lives and less than half a million Japanese lives from all causes. Horrific, but far less than the invasion would have taken.

Japanese officials were offering only a stand-down that would leave the pro-war Japanese government intact and in charge - a situation the U.S. rejected for obvious reasons.

BTW, though the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only two we had on hand at that moment, the U.S. was in gear to produce half a dozen more within a few months, and more later as needed. These would have been used on Japan during the invasion if Japan didn't surrender. Fortunately for all involved, the Japanese realized that the U.S. could completely destroy Japan as a country with virtually no U.S. casualties, with the remains divided between America and Russia (who was also invading), and so saw the wisdom of surrendering.

-----------------------------------------------

70th anniversary of V-J Day Kiss a nuke Hot Air

70th anniversary of V-J Day: Kiss a nuke

by Allan Bourdius
posted at 6:01 pm on August 14, 2015

Seventy years ago today on August 14, 1945, the Japanese Empire announced their surrender to the Allies and the end of World War II. The day (August 15th in Japan) is generally known as “Victory over Japan Day” or “V-J Day”. The official Japanese surrender was signed 19 days later on September 2, 1945, on board the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) in Tokyo Bay.

During the afternoon of this day seventy years ago, joyous Americans took to the streets to celebrate the end of the war. In New York City’s Times Square, a United States Navy sailor grabbed a woman, a “nurse” (she was actually a dental assistant) he didn’t know, and kissed her right in the middle of the street, the moment captured by two different photographers. It is the iconic image of V-J Day and the end of World War II.

Instead of a nurse, it would have been more fitting if he could have kissed a nuclear weapon. The life he later lived was undoubtedly made possible because of them.

Japan’s surrender was expedited by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945). Had Japan not announced their surrender, the United States would have had the next nuclear strike ready for August 19th, and another in September.

Then, still absent Japan’s surrender, Operation Downfall would begin; the invasion of the Japanese home islands in two parts.

November 1, 1945, “X-Day”, was the scheduled date for Operation Olympic, a landing by 14 American Army and Marine divisions in the initial attack on the island of Kyūshū.

Operation Coronet would follow on “Y-Day”, March 1, 1946 – landings directly into the Tokyo plain on the island of Honshū. Twenty-five divisions. Many more would be ready to reinforce them. Many of the Coronet soldiers would have been those retrained and redeployed after defeating Nazi Germany. Victory in Europe wouldn’t have spared them from more fighting to defeat Japan.

All in all, well over two million American servicemen would have taken part in the invasion of Japan. The United States also had plans for the tactical use of nuclear weapons during the attack, anticipating having an additional seven ready bombs on X-Day.

They would have faced a Japanese enemy who correctly predicted where the landings would take place. They would have faced a Japanese enemy who had changed the training for Kamikaze pilots so they would focus on attacking troop transports and landing ships rather than warships.

Estimates of casualties were wide ranging; the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicted in April 1945 that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 casualties, 109,000 of which would be killed or missing in action.

The same study said the entire campaign – Olympic and Coronet – would result in 1,200,000 total casualties, 267,000 killed or missing.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 15, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed zero Allied lives





Wrong again.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 15, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed zero Allied lives
> ...


Trying hard to ignore the fact that the Bomb saved millions of lives, eh?

One wonders why.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 15, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...




One wonders why you are trying to change the subject from your patently false claim.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Aug 15, 2015)

If we fought WWII today the left would bemoan the killing of the enemy, Bill Maher would be on the tube spewing anti military garbage and with the current Rules of Engagement we would lose the war in six months. 

We owe a great deal to the Greatest Generation, God Bless each of them


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> If we fought WWII today the left would bemoan the killing of the enemy, Bill Maher would be on the tube spewing anti military garbage and with the current Rules of Engagement we would lose the war in six months.
> 
> We owe a great deal to the Greatest Generation, God Bless each of them


Fighting Hitler - good, using terror to win the war - not so much.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 15, 2015)

Fixed it, for the nitpicky subject-diverters. Happy now?

Back to the subject:
The atomic bomb saved millions of lives, especially Japanese lives, for the fate that would have overtaken them if the U.S. had otherwise carried out its planned invasion of Japan.

Ironically, as you can see we still have a few whiners that think it should not have been used. These self-deluded whiners have inevitably never talked to the U.S. servicemen whose lives were spared by the use of the Bomb, nor the millions of Japanese who were likewise spared.

But they are far outnumbered by the people who are grateful to be alive due to the use of the Bomb - a number far outstripping the number killed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...


Lets see. both cities were functioning ports, both had industrial capacity, both were forming Armies to resist the coming invasion, yup you must be right both were totally civilian.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 15, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...
> ...


Please don't feed the trolls.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 15, 2015)

Military planners estimated that the coming invasion of Japan in 1945-1946 would cost a quarter million Allied lives, plus several million Japanese military and civilian lives.

Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed almost no Allied lives and less than half a million Japanese lives from all causes. Horrific, but far less than the invasion would have taken.

Japanese officials were offering only a stand-down that would leave the pro-war Japanese government intact and in charge - a situation the U.S. rejected for obvious reasons.

BTW, though the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only two we had on hand at that moment, the U.S. was in gear to produce half a dozen more within a few months, and more later as needed. These would have been used on Japan during the invasion if Japan didn't surrender. Fortunately for all involved, the Japanese realized that the U.S. could completely destroy Japan as a country with virtually no U.S. casualties, with the remains divided between America and Russia (who was also invading), and so saw the wisdom of surrendering.

-----------------------------------------------

70th anniversary of V-J Day Kiss a nuke Hot Air

70th anniversary of V-J Day: Kiss a nuke

by Allan Bourdius
posted at 6:01 pm on August 14, 2015

Seventy years ago today on August 14, 1945, the Japanese Empire announced their surrender to the Allies and the end of World War II. The day (August 15th in Japan) is generally known as “Victory over Japan Day” or “V-J Day”. The official Japanese surrender was signed 19 days later on September 2, 1945, on board the battleship USS Missouri (BB-63) in Tokyo Bay.

During the afternoon of this day seventy years ago, joyous Americans took to the streets to celebrate the end of the war. In New York City’s Times Square, a United States Navy sailor grabbed a woman, a “nurse” (she was actually a dental assistant) he didn’t know, and kissed her right in the middle of the street, the moment captured by two different photographers. It is the iconic image of V-J Day and the end of World War II.

Instead of a nurse, it would have been more fitting if he could have kissed a nuclear weapon. The life he later lived was undoubtedly made possible because of them.

Japan’s surrender was expedited by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945). Had Japan not announced their surrender, the United States would have had the next nuclear strike ready for August 19th, and another in September.

Then, still absent Japan’s surrender, Operation Downfall would begin; the invasion of the Japanese home islands in two parts.

November 1, 1945, “X-Day”, was the scheduled date for Operation Olympic, a landing by 14 American Army and Marine divisions in the initial attack on the island of Kyūshū.

Operation Coronet would follow on “Y-Day”, March 1, 1946 – landings directly into the Tokyo plain on the island of Honshū. Twenty-five divisions. Many more would be ready to reinforce them. Many of the Coronet soldiers would have been those retrained and redeployed after defeating Nazi Germany. Victory in Europe wouldn’t have spared them from more fighting to defeat Japan.

All in all, well over two million American servicemen would have taken part in the invasion of Japan. The United States also had plans for the tactical use of nuclear weapons during the attack, anticipating having an additional seven ready bombs on X-Day.

They would have faced a Japanese enemy who correctly predicted where the landings would take place. They would have faced a Japanese enemy who had changed the training for Kamikaze pilots so they would focus on attacking troop transports and landing ships rather than warships.

Estimates of casualties were wide ranging; the Joint Chiefs of Staff predicted in April 1945 that Olympic alone would cost 456,000 casualties, 109,000 of which would be killed or missing in action.

The same study said the entire campaign – Olympic and Coronet – would result in 1,200,000 total casualties, 267,000 killed or missing.


----------



## Preacher (Aug 15, 2015)

In a war FDR and his jewish advisers got us into. World would be a much better place today had Hitler won and the Jew lost.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...
> ...


Both were of no military importance.  That's why the weapons of terror worked so well...


----------



## 2aguy (Aug 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...




Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets....moron.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

2aguy said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


No, they were not.  Terror works, there in Germany.  That's why we bombed what we did.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 15, 2015)

The Japs had to be nuked.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Aug 15, 2015)

War is a ugly thing and we did what we needed to do to win the damn thing. The far left is foolish to think we won't get into another one...


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 15, 2015)

Once again, propaganda is shown to be effective. The will to believe one's country is right overcomes all rationality.
Little egos search for something bigger to associate with in the attempt at self validation. "My country/religion/race, etc., is great and I am part of it, so I am great!"
Well, who would want to take comforting thoughts away from children?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> The Japs had to be nuked.


No, they did not.  Only pussies use terror, American pussies in this case.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 15, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> Fixed it, for the nitpicky subject-diverters. Happy now?
> 
> Back to the subject:
> The atomic bomb saved millions of lives, especially Japanese lives, for the fate that would have overtaken them if the U.S. had otherwise carried out its planned invasion of Japan.
> ...


He's a school teacher. Anal retentiveness comes naturally. Along with fucking up our kids


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

Matthew said:


> War is a ugly thing and we did what we needed to do to win the damn thing. The far left is foolish to think we won't get into another one...


Why would they believe that?  Americans love war, it's why we spend so much cash building all those deadly toys you love...


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > The Japs had to be nuked.
> ...


How were we to get the Japs to stop fighting then?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


Easy, all we had to do was wait.  They were already in the process of surrendering.


----------



## my2¢ (Aug 15, 2015)

Last month our local paper had an interesting story on the Japanese spy planted in Pearl Harbor and how he was held here in Arizona for a while (at guest ranch where they later shot the original 3:10 to Yuma).  The U.S. did not know his true identification and failed to make connection.  Thus he was included in a 1942 prisoner exchange.        
Pearl Harbor spy was detained at Triangle T Ranch


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


No they weren't. They didn't even surrender after the first bomb. It took two.


----------



## nuhuh (Aug 15, 2015)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...



Why was it necessary to kill 200,000 civilians? What would we have said if roles were reversed and the Japanese bombed Honolulu and Norfolk Virginia cities in equal size? Where were the military targets?


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Steve_McGarrett said:
> ...


Learn the history, the war was going to end either way soon enough...

"General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."
Was Hiroshima Necessary


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 15, 2015)

The bombs were payback for the attack at Pearl Harbor and the men of the USS Arizona.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 15, 2015)

Civilians specifically targeted and slaughtered for revenge against a decimated military opponent?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 15, 2015)

Those 'limited' individuals who are incapable of even discussing it without the use of racial slurs represent a disturbing aspect of the issue.


----------



## nuhuh (Aug 15, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Civilians specifically targeted and slaughtered for revenge against a decimated military opponent?



I'm clearly against the use of nuclear devices against civilians but there is two sides to this story. The targets were selected by committee and were chosen both because of their military significance and the fact the military was using the civilian population to hide behind, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also defended by anti aircraft guns and fighter planes. The Army Air Corp dropped leaflets for days preceding the attacks, we broadcasted terms of surrender, we sent an ambassador to the Swiss to negotiate terms, and we received no response when we issued the Potsdam Declaration. From an American point of view we had no choice.

10 million Japanese were killed in the lead up to the nuclear bombing, there is no way to equate the bombing to a payback for Pearl Harbor. We had paid them back many times over already. 

Last, the Japanese had already lost the war at Midway, the loss of four carriers and assorted other vessels nailed them to the wall. The war was dragged out by their dying strategy of making it as bloody as possible and fighting to the last man. They mistakenly thought we were weak and would give up from the blood thirstyness of it all.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 15, 2015)

nuhuh said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Civilians specifically targeted and slaughtered for revenge against a decimated military opponent?
> ...



Tell that to Steve McMaggot, he seems to think differently.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 15, 2015)

And saying "we had no choice" is specious. It is a means of avoiding the central moral issue. We had several choices.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 15, 2015)

Odium said:


> In a war FDR and his jewish advisers got us into. World would be a much better place today had Hitler won and the Jew lost.


Ya Germany and Japan had NOTHING to do with us being in WW2, it was all those damned Jess faulty, they secretly bombed Pearl harbor and pretended to be Japanese and then they pretended to be Hitler and declared war on us pretending to be Germany.Man are they ever sneaky.


----------



## nuhuh (Aug 15, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> And saying "we had no choice" is specious. It is a means of avoiding the central moral issue. We had several choices.



The United States thought it had righteousness on their side and thought that a bomb of this magnitude would end the war in the most humane way. After five years and 250,000 dead they had had enough. The "no choice" is a relative term and the American people were tired of it, deciding to bring an end in the quickest way possible. I agree that I wish they had debated other ways to accomplish this, but it is what it is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 15, 2015)

The Japanese Government had NO intention of surrendering even after 2 Atomic Bombs the Army which ran the Government attempted a Coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett (Aug 15, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Japanese Government had NO intention of surrendering even after 2 Atomic Bombs the Army which ran the Government attempted a Coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering.


So true! Tojo was the ringleader.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Aug 15, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> Military planners estimated that the coming invasion of Japan in 1945-1946 would cost a quarter million Allied lives, plus several million Japanese military and civilian lives.
> 
> Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed almost no Allied lives and less than half a million Japanese lives from all causes. Horrific, but far less than the invasion would have taken.
> 
> ...



That's what you think about when you think about V-J Day?

Weird.


----------



## Preacher (Aug 15, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Odium said:
> 
> 
> > In a war FDR and his jewish advisers got us into. World would be a much better place today had Hitler won and the Jew lost.
> ...


Inconvenient History A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry
The Zionist Jewish Role In Causing World War II
Jew Watch - Jewish World Conspiracies - Zionism - World War Two - World War II

Oh and as far as Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt and his Jewish advisers declared economic war on Japan cutting off their oil supply Japan had no choice but to attack. That was the entire plan by Roosevelt. He knew the US citizenry would not stand for war unless they thought that they had been attacked and they knew Germany wanted no war with the US or England. Read MK you would know that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 15, 2015)

Odium said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Odium said:
> ...


Retard alert, retard alert. We cut off Japan because they went back to war with China. Ohh and explain how it is an act of war NOT to sell to someone?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 15, 2015)

R-word Spread the Word to End the Word


----------



## theHawk (Aug 15, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...



Hiroshima was the imperial navy HQ and a major manufacturing city (it still is).  The Japs were given every opportunity to surrender, but their leaders were delusional racists that believed they were superior to whites and that their Emperor was divine and thus there was no way they would lose the war.

It is rather hilarious to watch progress assclowns like you defend racist religious zealots like the Imperial Japanese though, so please continue.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 15, 2015)

theHawk said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Yes, they were so important militarily that we never bothered to bomb them, until we needed to induce terror by causing the mass death of civilians...


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 15, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Once again, propaganda is shown to be effective. The will to believe one's country is right overcomes all rationality.
> Little egos search for something bigger to associate with in the attempt at self validation. "My country/religion/race, etc., is great and I am part of it, so I am great!"
> Well, who would want to take comforting thoughts away from children?


TRANSLATION: I can't reply to the points made in the OP, so I'll call them names, call the poster names, and recite platitudes. And hope somebody believes me somewhere.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 15, 2015)

You've probably noticed that the usual whiners who are outraged that we used a massive weapon on those who attacked us, and ended the war by doing so, still have nothing to say about it except dreamy-headed platitudes like "Well, we didn't HAVE to!"

Typical loser's rhetoric and wishful thinking. Thank God we didn't have such people in charge in the 1940s.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 16, 2015)

The worthless arguments of those who approve of this atrocity have been so often refuted that it is painful and pointless to detail them once more. Protesting here is for any possible objective, reasonable reader, to encourage her/him not to merely fall into the 'party line' and accept such acts as justified.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 16, 2015)

Progressives want to make rapid progress toward the occupation of Japan and the hindrance to Stalin, so they liberally applied new, super-technology on helpless woman and children. They refused to be conservative with human life, but squandered it, like the Nazis and Communists.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...



Stupid statement.  Note that by the standards of WW2, both cities *absolutely were* military targets!  Hiroshima had aircraft factories and shipyards, Nagasaki was the site of Japan's largest torpedo factory.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 16, 2015)

Odium said:


> In a war FDR and his jewish advisers got us into. World would be a much better place today had Hitler won and the Jew lost.



You are too stupid to live.  Kill yourself.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Steve_McGarrett said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


Bullshit.  Even AFTER the atomic bombings, surrendering damn near got Hirohito assassinated!


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 16, 2015)

Even a factory that is able to function must have raw materials to produce airplanes, and then there must be pilots to fly them. Japan had no more.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Even a factory that is able to function must have raw materials to produce airplanes, and then there must be pilots to fly them. Japan had no more.


Japan did have bamboo and ordered all able body civilians to cut bamboo spears and to human wave assault any landings by the Allies. They were forming those armies at Nagasaki and Hiroshima as well. Saipan and Okinawa proved that the Japanese civilians would obey any order by their Government. MILLIONS of Japanese civilians as young as 12 or 13 as well would have died in the Invasion. And as already told to you even after the Emperor agreed to surrender after two atomic Bombs the Japanese Army staged a Coup to try and stop it.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> The worthless arguments of those who approve of this atrocity have been so often refuted that it is painful and pointless to detail them once more.


TRANSLATION: I can't refute them, so I'll pretend I already have, without providing any details or references, hoping somebody will believe me somewhere.

This is all in support of my preference that we would have invaded Japan instead, destroying many millions of lives. Instead of the less-than-a-million destroyed when we used the Bomb and ended the war quickly.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 16, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > The worthless arguments of those who approve of this atrocity have been so often refuted that it is painful and pointless to detail them once more.
> ...


An apologist for terror, so common these days.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > Even a factory that is able to function must have raw materials to produce airplanes, and then there must be pilots to fly them. Japan had no more.
> ...




This notion is overplayed. Starving old women and children were not going to die charging US forces. It's s ridiculous notion based on propaganda put out by the Japanese military to try and bolster flagging public support for a lost effort.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 16, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> And saying "we had no choice" is specious. It is a means of avoiding the central moral issue. We had several choices.


TRANSLATION: I think it would have been better to kill several million people in the invasion of Japan, than to kill less than a million with the Bomb and end the war.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 16, 2015)

Steve_McGarrett said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > Easy, all we had to do was wait.  They were already in the process of surrendering.
> ...


Please don't feed the trolls.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > And saying "we had no choice" is specious. It is a means of avoiding the central moral issue. We had several choices.
> ...






I don't need any "translation" from the likes of you. I say what I mean, punk.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...


And yet On Saipan and Okinawa the Japanese Civilians, also I might add, starving, obeyed the order to commit suicide in mass. And the Japanese soldier fought to the last man in fact some stayed combatants for decades after the war ended.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 16, 2015)

And yet, invading Japan was not necessary, so no Marines or Army personnel would have gotten any splinters from bamboo.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> And yet, invading Japan was not necessary, so no Marines or Army personnel would have gotten any splinters from bamboo.


Too bad you weren't there to tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Department of State that their estimates were completely wrong.  

Back to the subject:
Military planners estimated that the coming invasion of Japan in 1945-1946 would cost a quarter million Allied lives, plus several million Japanese military and civilian lives.

Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed almost no Allied lives and less than half a million Japanese lives from all causes. Horrific, but far less than the invasion would have taken.

Japanese officials were offering only a stand-down that would leave the pro-war Japanese government intact and in charge - a situation the U.S. rejected for obvious reasons.

BTW, though the two bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only two we had on hand at that moment, the U.S. was in gear to produce half a dozen more within a few months, and more later as needed. These would have been used on Japan during the invasion if Japan didn't surrender. Fortunately for all involved, the Japanese realized that the U.S. could completely destroy Japan as a country with virtually no U.S. casualties, with the remains divided between America and Russia (who was also invading), and so saw the wisdom of surrendering.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 16, 2015)

Isn't it, though.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> Even a factory that is able to function must have raw materials to produce airplanes, and then there must be pilots to fly them. Japan had no more.



Bullshit.  Especially considering that they had stockpiled THOUSANDS of _kamikaze_ aircraft to hit an invasion fleet, total bullshit!  "Training" a suicide pilot took about two weeks.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 16, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > there4eyeM said:
> ...



An advocate for the deaths of tens of millions...so evil.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




The civilians on Okinawa were lied to by the military government because they were not considered 'really' Japanese, and so were expendable in trying to delay the inevitable. 

The whole 'never surrender' thing is overplayed and misunderstood as well.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2015)

there4eyeM said:


> And yet, invading Japan was not necessary, so no Marines or Army personnel would have gotten any splinters from bamboo.


Japan refused to surrender how exactly, if we did not use the atomic bombs or invade were we going to force them to surrender? Remember even after 2 bombs the Army attempted a Coup to stop their LIVING GOD emperor from surrendering.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


You obviously never read any real history. In battle after battle the Japanese Soldiers committed suicide or mass wave attacks on allied positions when they lost. In Alaska 700 of them stood in a group and pulled grenade pins when they realized they could not win. In Guadalcanal 1000 of them human waved attack the entire 2nd marine Division and fixed machine gun positions across a river. In Saipian Iwo Jima and every other island battle they committed suicide rather then surrender. In Saipan they ordered the Japanese civilians to suicide rather then be captured and thousands of them did JUST that. In Okinawa when some civilians refused to suicide soldiers tried to kill them with grenades. I have read NUMEROUS historical accounts of the War and you sir are an idiot.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




More than you ever will in your life, chump. And if you ever studied any actual Japanese history, you'd find this 'never-ever surrender' thing is an ideal (as it is in the West) rather than a universal reality.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Not spouting the nonsense you have been spouting. I suppose those dozens of Japanese Soldiers that hide out on pacific island Jungles for 30 years were not real either right? Before Iwo Jima the US had captured something like 1000 Japanese troops alive in all their campaigns. I suppose you believe that the US simply murdered all those supposed Japanese that REALLY wanted to surrender? At Iwo they captured mostly Korean slave labor as the garrison fought almost to the last man. You are an idiot if you think the Japanese soldier or civilian of WW2 would not have obeyed any order from High Command.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 16, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You are an idiot if you think the Japanese soldier or civilian of WW2 would not have obeyed any order from High Command.




There goes your ignorance again.


----------



## blackhawk (Aug 16, 2015)

You guys do know that after the Emperor made the decision to surrender after the use of the bombs a faction in the military tried to overthrow him and prevent the surender from being announced right?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 16, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


And I suppose the JAPANESE Civilians on Saipan were considered not really Japanese? You realize Saipan was considered part of main land Japan and was inhabited by ACTUAL Japanese civilians?

I repeat you are a retard if you claim that the Japanese military and civilians would not obey High Command, for 3 years they proved they would do just that including suicide before surrender.


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 17, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> The civilians on Okinawa were lied to by the military government because they were not considered 'really' Japanese, and so were expendable in trying to delay the inevitable.


So many claims, so little evidence or backup.  (yawn)


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 17, 2015)

Jarlaxle said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > An apologist for terror, so common these days.
> ...


Please don't feed the trolls.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Aug 17, 2015)

Little-Acorn said:


> Military planners estimated that the coming invasion of Japan in 1945-1946 would cost a quarter million Allied lives, plus several million Japanese military and civilian lives.
> 
> Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed almost no Allied lives and less than half a million Japanese lives from all causes. Horrific, but far less than the invasion would have taken.
> 
> ...



cool video of v-j day in Hawaii


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 17, 2015)

Okinawans decry discrimination by mainland Japanese - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun


Being Okinawan in Japan The Diaspora Experience The Asia-Pacific Journal


----------



## Little-Acorn (Aug 17, 2015)

Many Americans today constantly thank the sciwentists who developed the first atomic bomb, and the politicians and military leaders who decided to use it on Japan, for sparing their father, uncle, grandfather etc. from having to participate in the invasion of Japan in 1945, where there was a significant chance he's have been wounded or killed. The Bomb averted that possibility.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 17, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Okinawans decry discrimination by mainland Japanese - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
> 
> 
> Being Okinawan in Japan The Diaspora Experience The Asia-Pacific Journal


I notice you KEEP ignoring Saipan. The civilians living there were Japanese. The Island was considered part of Mainland Japan. Remind us why the civilians there committed suicide and how your claim the Government didn't care on Okinawa has anything to do with Saipan?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Okinawans decry discrimination by mainland Japanese - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun
> ...



Some, not all.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The Island was considered part of Mainland Japan. ..




Not exactly. It was closer to that than the other islands America had taken, but it was seen as more of the last barrier before the home islands than part of them.


----------



## SuperDemocrat (Aug 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...



I hate America to...How about you?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Remind us why the civilians there committed suicide ...




Because they believed the propaganda about Americans that had been repeated throughout the war. Civilians there were not executed en mass as on Okinawa. Nonetheless, the fact that it fell was so shocking to the military government that Tojo was forced to resign.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

SuperDemocrat said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...
> ...




That is your considerable problem. Also,


----------



## candycorn (Aug 18, 2015)

NYcarbineer said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > Military planners estimated that the coming invasion of Japan in 1945-1946 would cost a quarter million Allied lives, plus several million Japanese military and civilian lives.
> ...



I actually agree with the basic principle of the OP; dropping the bomb saved American GI lives.  There is zero way to know if the Japanese were going to surrender.  Our soldiers sacrifices and the Japanese actions on Guam, Palau, and Iwo Jima were/are enough evidence for me to think that they were not.  This and kamikazee air strikes.  

So I agree, dropping the bombs saved lives.  I recall seeing an interview with Enola Gay pilot, Tibbits that he had Japanese veterans tell him that the bomb saved lives.  

That being said, it takes a sick mind to celebrate something like this.


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 18, 2015)

If the invasion of Japan had been necessary, it might be possible to agree that the first bomb was useful (though that on Nagasaki was nothing but gratuitous slaughter). Since that invasion was not necessary, the entire episode is a frightful embarrassment for America and humanity.
It is most certainly nothing to celebrate.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


Ohh so now you are claiming that only the non Japanese on Saipan committed suicide? You have yet to explain why the JAPANESE Civilians on Saipan committed suicide rather then be captured by the Americans. You have claimed that Okinawan's were different some how then Japanese. You have failed to explain why thousands of Japanese Soldiers on every Island we invaded committed suicide rather then surrender. You have failed to explain why Japanese citizens and fully Japanese people committed suicide rather then surrender, yet you claim there is no evidence that the same would have happened in main land Japan.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have yet to explain why the JAPANESE Civilians on Saipan committed suicide rather then be captured by the Americans. ....




Yes, I did explain that. Pay attention.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have claimed that Okinawan's were different some how then [sic] Japanese. ....




That's not exactly what I said. Pay attention.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You have failed to explain why thousands of Japanese Soldiers on every Island we invaded committed suicide rather then [sic] surrender. ....




Now you are trying to change the subject from civilians to soldiers. Pretty obvious.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Aug 18, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> If we fought WWII today the left would bemoan the killing of the enemy, Bill Maher would be on the tube spewing anti military garbage and with the current Rules of Engagement we would lose the war in six months.
> 
> We owe a great deal to the Greatest Generation, God Bless each of them



We would never be able to win a war such as WWII today. The non-stop live video feeds would turn Americans against the effort in a very short time.
The only war that Americans today would be willing to support over a sustained period of time would be one that is fought on our own soil.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > You have failed to explain why thousands of Japanese Soldiers on every Island we invaded committed suicide rather then [sic] surrender. ....
> ...


You claimed initially that the claim that the Japanese soldier would commit suicide rather then be captured was overblown and was not as serious as was suggested. Are you admitting you were wrong? You claimed in regards Civilians, they would not do as the Government told them, yet Saipan proves they would. Are you admitting you are wrong?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




No, I said the whole "Japanese never surrender" theme was overblown, and it often is by people whose 'scholarship' consists of book jackets and whose 'experience' consists of watching bad movies.


Pay attention.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You claimed in regards Civilians, they would not do as the Government told them...




No, I did not say that. Pay attention (unless you're being deliberately dishonest).


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > You claimed in regards Civilians, they would not do as the Government told them...
> ...


Ohh so you did not claim that if the US Invaded the main Japanese Islands that civilians would not cut bamboo spears as ordered and human wave assault the beaches? You did not claim that the whole idea that Japan wouldn't surrender was fiction even though after 2 atomic Bombs the Army tried to stage a Coup to stop the surrender? You did not claim we should not have dropped the bombs because well Japan would surrender?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




Not in large numbers, no.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You did not claim that the whole idea that Japan wouldn't surrender was fiction...?




It was, of course, fiction. Japan was starving and defeated. It was a matter of time.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


You would bet Millions of lives on something that at the time was accepted fact? That as proven in all cases the Japanese civilians obeyed the Government? But according to YOU this would have been different? Again you are trying to have it both ways, you can not deny they did in fact obey yet want to claim JUST this time when their homes and Country were at stake they wouldn't.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > You did not claim that the whole idea that Japan wouldn't surrender was fiction...?
> ...


And yet no surrender. Again AFTER 2 ATOMIC Bombs the Government of Japan intended to fight on. Only the intervention of the Emperor stopped them and THEN they tried a COUP to stop their "Living God" Emperor.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




It would be pretty hard for "millions" of people to die charging beaches with bamboo. I know that simple minds like to cling to simple notions because they are easy to use like the big crayons, but the fact is that the Japanese population was starving and disillusioned well before Aug. 6. The military was trying to use propaganda to bolster flagging support for an obviously failed war effort. That propaganda from 70 years ago still seems to be working on Barnumites like you.


----------



## regent (Aug 18, 2015)

Seems we still can't agree on the correct course of action to take in a war that happened seventy years ago. If we can't agree today, when it's  all, and we have all  the information, imagine what it must have been like for those at the time, those that had to make the real decision. They had not the joy of arguing on the boards but the loss of an unknown number of American lives if they guessed wrong. 
When the Japanese did decide to surrender they got word quickly to the Americans and the war was over.


----------



## Camp (Aug 18, 2015)

regent said:


> Seems we still can't agree on the correct course of action to take in a war that happened seventy years ago. If we can't agree today, when it's  all, and we have all  the information, imagine what it must have been like for those at the time, those that had to make the real decision. They had not the joy of arguing on the boards but the loss of an unknown number of American lives if they guessed wrong.
> When the Japanese did decide to surrender they got word quickly to the Americans and the war was over.



The revisionist have done a good job convincing people that Japan was a helpless and defeated enemy that would have to defend itself with civilians armed with sharpened bamboo spears. That totally ignores the facts of what an American invasion would have had to confront. There should not be a debate. Japan was armed to the teeth and fully prepared to wage a deadly and costly defense.

When the bombs were dropped Japan still had over 7 million men in uniform, over 3 million of them on the main islands. There is no way to know how many troops would have been able to return to the homeland from the various islands, SE Asia, China and other areas of deployment. One can only speculate as to how many of the 4 million dispersed troops would have successfully made it home to join in the defense of the homeland with the over 3 million already there.

In addition to already issued weapons, the Japanese military had stockpiled no less than 2,468,665 rifles and carbines for preparation of the invasion and over 51,000,000 mortar rounds. They had over 6,000 aircraft hidden away and perfectly suitable for kamikaze attacks. They had almost unlimited supplies of small and large vessels and ships that would have been used in suicide attacks as well. These exact numbers are known because they were recorded by US occupation forces. 

The Japanese military were confident that they could inflict enough casualties on any invasion force so as to bring about a cease fire, truce and other than an unconditional surrender. They were bound and determined to inflict huge numbers of casualties on the invasion force and they  had the manpower, equipment and supplies to do it.

Figures provide from above come from Gen. MacArthur's occupation reports.

history.army.mil/books/wwii/macarthur%20reports/macarthur%20v1%20sup/ch5.htm


----------



## regent (Aug 18, 2015)

Japan's goal had never been to win the war but to inflict American casualties in such a manner the Americans would tire of the casualties and of the war and negotiate a peace. That inflict casualties and we would make peace theme song was still in force to almost the end, then the A bombs and the USSR entered the picture.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Little-Acorn said:
> 
> 
> > Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed zero Allied lives
> ...


(chuckle)
What allied lives did dropping the bomb cost, and how does that compare to the loss of lives from an invasion?


----------



## The sheeple sea (Aug 18, 2015)

regent said:


> Japan's goal had never been to win the war but to inflict American casualties in such a manner the Americans would tire of the casualties and of the war and negotiate a peace. That inflict casualties and we would make peace theme song was still in force to almost the end, then the A bombs and the USSR entered the picture.


Then why did they invade China? The point of the axis powers was to divide the world amongst them. They bombed us and then wanted to negotiate a peace? Bull. They were hoping pearl harbor would cripple us into not fighting at all while they divvied up  Asia. 
And while people in Japan may have wanted peace eventually the hard-line Japanese military was having none of it.
The A bomb not only saved us from D-Day 2.0, but showed the world the frightening power of nuclear weaponry and is the best example of a nuclear deterant today.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > Little-Acorn said:
> ...




At least 12 Americans in Hiroshima.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


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


I see you could not muster the intellectual honesty to address the second part of the question.
Here is is again:
...and how does that compare to the loss of lives from an invasion?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


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


He is a liar and a fool. He first claims that the habit of the Japanese to suicide rather then surrender would not have happened with a mainland invasion, then he claims that even though through out the war the civilian population did what ever it was told they wouldn't have attacked invading Americans. He further claims that even though after two A Bombs and the intervention of the Emperor to force the Japanese Government to surrender they staged a coup to stop the surrender, but according to this retard they were just moments away from a surrender.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


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


Liar AND a fool.  Indeed.


----------



## regent (Aug 18, 2015)

[QUOTE="The sheeple sea said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > Japan's goal had never been to win the war but to inflict American casualties in such a manner the Americans would tire of the casualties and of the war and negotiate a peace. That inflict casualties and we would make peace theme song was still in force to almost the end, then the A bombs and the USSR entered the picture.
> ...


China and the US were two different parts of WWII. China was to be a Japanese possession and the US had become a problem to Japan's China goals by cutting off Japans resources to conquer China. Japan was fairly certain it could not defeat the US but with a negotiated peace and after American tired of the war and ensuing casualties, Japan would have free reign in the Pacific. America's weakness, as Japan saw it, was her reluctance to fight a long war with tremendous casualties, so America would eventually negotiate giving Japan that free reign in the Pacific.


----------



## The sheeple sea (Aug 18, 2015)

regent said:


> [QUOTE="The sheeple sea said:
> 
> 
> > regent said:
> ...


So the "peace" they wanted to negotiate was the complete surrender of the US interest in the Pacific. Yeah, no thanks. When negotiation terms are complete surrender that is not negotiating.


----------



## The sheeple sea (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


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


12  Americans in a warring country at war time? Hold the bombs! Send in troops by the million!


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> the Japanese to suicide rather then surrender would not have happened with a mainland invasion.....




Like it did when the occupation forces arrived?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> they were just moments away from a surrender.




I didn't say that, but your desperate attempt at dishonesty has been recognized for what it is. You poor bastard...


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

The sheeple sea said:


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




You should read the original exchange before making a fool of yourself.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > the Japanese to suicide rather then surrender would not have happened with a mainland invasion.....
> ...


The Emperor ordered the surrender you retard. he was their "living God" prior to the surrender the Government told people to either die fighting or suicide because the Americans were demons. But then you know this and are trying to pretend you don't. Remind us the Government so ready to surrender that after two atomic Bombs and an order by their Emperor to surrender they attempted a coup to stop the surrender?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > they were just moments away from a surrender.
> ...


What you are trying to deny is the fact that after 2 ATOMIC bombs the Government refused to surrender and the Emperor intervened and ordered it. And then the Army staged a coup to stop that.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




I'm not "trying to deny" anything. My words are clear enough. You have become utterly desperate.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > the Japanese to suicide rather then surrender would not have happened with a mainland invasion.....
> ...


.


----------



## regent (Aug 18, 2015)

The sheeple sea said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > [QUOTE="The sheeple sea said:
> ...


I never read the negotiating agreement that Japan would have accepted. I'm not sure there was even one drawn up. Since Japan had removed the immediate threat of the American fleet, Japan was able to invade other islands that had the needed oil and other resources she needed and now Japan had only to wait until America tired of the war and the casualties and accept the new status quo.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 18, 2015)

Incinerate civilians and keep incinerating civilians as long as it takes to convince a small group of hard liners to capitulate. God help civilization when we embrace this concept for political purposes.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 18, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Keep trotting that one out it proves just how desperate you are. The Emperor ORDERED the surrender. To the Japanese he was a "Living God" His commandments were all it took to tell the citizens and the military that they would accept the surrender. Further numerous Japanese officers did in fact commit suicide after the surrender.

Before the Emperor ordered the surrender the Government acting for him ordered the citizenry to cut bamboo spears and to human wave charge any invading troops. And they also told the people not to surrender. With the Emperors new order to accept surrender the old orders were no longer in force.


----------



## AvgGuyIA (Aug 18, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...


The deaths of civilians ended the war.  We should do this in the Middle East now.


----------



## whitehall (Aug 18, 2015)

Life was cheap during WW2. Allied bombers destroyed Dresden Germany in a firestorm for seemingly no other reason than there were little strategic targets left. Harry Truman wasn't elected at the time but he was hand picked by the democrat/military complex when they knew FDR would not live much longer than his 4th term inauguration. Truman was apparently so intimidated by the democrat/military complex and the scientists who were just dying to use their baby on real live humans that he refused to negotiate with the desperate Japanese holdouts and authorized the use of two inhuman weapons even while the Japanese were trying to negotiate with Stalin for surrender terms. The winners write the history books but the truth is still easy to find in the greatest Country in the world. For now.


----------



## PaintMyHouse (Aug 18, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> > A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...
> ...


They are not at war with you, you are at war with them...


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> To the Japanese he was a "Living God"....




Something else you don't understand.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 18, 2015)

AvgGuyIA said:


> We should do this in the Middle East now.




If you really believe that you are completely bankrupt morally. Pity for you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > the Japanese to suicide rather then surrender would not have happened with a mainland invasion.....
> ...


I see you could not muster the intellectual honesty to address the second part of the question.
Here is is again:
...and how does that compare to the loss of lives from an invasion?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > We should do this in the Middle East now.
> ...


I see you could not muster the intellectual honesty to address the second part of the question.
Here is is again:
...and how does that compare to the loss of lives from an invasion?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > To the Japanese he was a "Living God"....
> ...


I see you could not muster the intellectual honesty to address the second part of the question.
Here is is again:
...and how does that compare to the loss of lives from an invasion?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Unkotare said:
> ...


I see you could not muster the intellectual honesty to address the second part of the question.
Here is is again:
...and how does that compare to the loss of lives from an invasion?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

We had defeated their army, their navy and their air force. 

We rolled them back until all they had left was their island...No access to oil, tin, aluminum, iron or the resources needed to continue to "fight". 

They live on an island. They aren't going to go anywhere. A blockade for a few months would have solved it.
No need to "invade"...certainly no need to purposely murder civilians with nuclear bombs.
The only nation to ever use nukes...and we used them on civilians...great legacy there.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> We had defeated their army, their navy and their air force.
> We rolled them back until all they had left was their island...No access to oil, tin, aluminum, iron or the resources needed to continue to "fight".


A question you have never asked yourself:
How many civilians do you suppose would have died had we starved them into surrender?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > We had defeated their army, their navy and their air force.
> ...



No point in speculating on fantasy.

We did not "have" to invade to force them to surrender..

In fact the japs offered a conditional surrender if they could be allowed to keep the emperor...The U.S. refused...We thought it would be better to show off for russia and demonstrate what we could do with our new toys....

You ok with nuking civilians?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Your entire post was a speculation on fantasy.  
Fact is you never once considered how many people would have died has we completely cut japan off from the outside world and waited for them to surrender -- not once.
Now, consider your answer to that question and then tell us how terrible it was to drop the bombs.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Useless specualtion ....and diversion. 
There is no way to evaluate an event that never happened..we can only evaluate reality.

You ok with nuking civilians?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


You and I both understand that you do not want to soundly address the question I asked because doing so will negate the point you tried to make - I therefore accept your concession.

Compared to any realistic alternative, dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives.   
The sooner you accept that, the better off you are.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



LMAO...you ask me to debunk a fantasy scenario you made up in your own mind...

Declare "victory" if you feel you need to...I don't mind.

The facts are that we did not have to nuke civilians to get japan to surrender. They OFFERED to surrender conditionally...We refused.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Starving them into surrender is YOUR scenario, bub.
YOU neglected to consuder the costs of doing that and got caught.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



LMAO...you're still basing your whole argument on fantasy and speculation. 

nuking innocent civilians is preferential to accepting a conditional surrender is your position. got it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Starving them into surrender  - YOUR scenario - is nothing but fantasy and speculation.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Not true..It is an alternative to nuking innocent civilians. 
The japs offered to surrender conditionally. We wouldn't allow it. We wanted to nuke somebody...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


OK..  and so, in your non-speculative, non-fantasy alternative scenario, where we starve the Japanese into surrender, how many civilians die?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you're becoming unhinged.
I've told you speculating on your fantasy scenarios is pointless.
The japs offered to surrender.
We had already defeated their army, navy and air force...we pushed them back from all sources of war materials so they had no way to maintain any "war effort". They live on an island..They aren't going anywhere.
THEY HAD ALREADY OFFERED TO SURRENDER CONDITIONALLY...There was no "need" to invade...no need to nuke civilians.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Wait....   you said your idea of starving Japan into surrender was not fantasy and speculation, but an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
So...   which is it?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



hahaha...you're really confused now...
I said we didn't have to invade OR nuke civilians.The japs were done..they tried to surrender....we wanted to nuke them, though.
In your mind it's ok to nuke civilians..That's on you....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Aha.  And so, what is your alternative, absent their consent to unconditional surrender?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Blockade/siege, of course...been done thousands of times throughout history. 
After some period of time the citizens would get tired of living under those conditions and would force the gvt to surrender.
Been done thousands of times throughout history.

What is interesting is your refusal to accept possibilities other than nuking civilians...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


And how many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I told you several times I'm not going to play your game of speculating on fantasy scenarios you invent out of thin air..

You see nuking civilians as a viable option. You'd fit right in among isis. They love murdering civilians.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...




The word is "Japanese." Otherwise, good post.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Compared to any realistic alternative, dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives.  ....




You, of course, don't know that. AND you are missing another important distinction.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Blockade/siege is your idea.
How many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



no way of knowing, is there?..you ask a question that has no answer...because it never happened.... and then declare victory because there is no answer..LMAO....

the point is that nuking civilians is ok with you.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Which means of course, there's no way you can argue with any degree o soundness that your idea would cost fewer lives.
That being the case, how can you soundly argue that Blockade/siege it a viable alternative?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.

I said there was no "need" to invade japan OR nuke them.They offered to surrender.
...murdering civilians and non combatants is ok with you..fine..own it..


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


I see.  So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians. One of them would have been to accept their conditional surrender...you think murdering civilians is a legitimate way to impose your will...kind of like isis.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?


> I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.


You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..
...and now you (halfheartedly) agree that there WERE, in fact, other ways to end the war with japan...but you just PREFER the nuclear option..


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


They did not offer to surrender they offered a ceasefire and a return to 41 start lines. After the first atomic bomb the Emperor offered to surrender IF we recognized he was the REAL head of State with no change to their Government. Get your facts straight.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Glad to see you understand citing the existence of alternatives is, in and of itself, meaningless.
Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


They did not offer to surrender.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


 
That's easy. 
To retain the moral high ground as civilized people...
I can explain it to you, but I can't "make" you understand that nuking civilians is wrong.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


How, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?


----------



## Camp (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Blockading was rejected in this case because it went against the tenets of military science. Japan had millions of weapons stockpiled for the invasion. They needed civilians to be trained in the use of those weapons. Two and a half million rifles and carbines were available for arming the civilian population which would fight alongside the over four million Japanese military personnel on the mainland. Each day that went by meant more armed and trained enemy. Additionally, a blockade would give the Japanese time to continue building defensive lines, tunnels, etc.

Japanese cities were being firebombed and were suffering casualties much greater than what the atom bombs would cause. If anything, it might be concluded the firebombings were far worse than the atom bomb bombings. The firebombings were being carried out by B-29's and they were still suffering losses from anti aircraft and even normal non combat inflicted crashes. Each craft carried 11 crew members. Hence, both the Japanese civilian population and the American military were suffering casualties until the Japanese military and government could be forced into surrender.

www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



sieges and blockades had been used for centuries to effectively break down the will of an enemy without having to attack them in a full frontal assault. That's the purpose of blockades and sieges.. 
look...make all the excuses you want.
Most civilized people acknowledge that purposely targeting and murdering civilians is wrong....some people also believe that nuking civilians is wrong too. 
You don't. Fine..carry on....no need to play word games about it. Own it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Camp said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Against all of that you have "But NUKES!!  NUKES!!!  OMFG NUKES !!!".


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


You did not answer the question.
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

Camp said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



So in your mind it's ok to nuke civilians...
Well, ok.fine.....but what's curious is your desperate attempts to justify it by making up fantasy scenarios where our "only" option was nukes. The japs could not sustain any type of war effort with no resources and trapped on an island.

Hey..remember our island hopping campaign?..remember?..the whole point was to bypass certain places and let them wither on the vine as they couldn't be resupplied and had no means to make war.

Didn't we hang a bunch of german officers after the war for murdering civilians, too?...that was "different", though, right?  LMAO...


----------



## Camp (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Blockades and sieges are certainly tactics of warfare. They were not suited for this situation. That was a military evaluation made by the military people responsible for defeating Japan and the military personnel who would be ordering and invasion that experts predicted would cost hundreds of thousand of US military killed and hundreds of thousands more being maimed and injured. Easy for the philosophers to sit back over 75 years later and speculate about fantasy options. 
Some guys decided the WWII crap and the death and destruction had to stop. They were given the means and they stopped the WWII crap of death and destruction. Two bombs, war over. No more firebombings and no more need to send all those American boys to their deaths.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



purposely targeting civilians is wrong. nuking civilians is worse....but I get you now..."murica..fuck yeah!"


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


You did not answer the question.
I'll re-ask.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Again, you did not answer the question.
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?


----------



## Camp (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Wonder how you would feel after years of warfare of the kind that was fought in WWII. Like I said, easy to look back 75 plus years and make the kind of holier than thou statements and claim to standing on higher ground than the people who had to make the decisions 75 years ago. When a big percentage of the guys you went to school with haven't been killed or wounded in the war already it is easy to stand on your tower.  When watching the Western Union deliverer routinely bringing messages to your neighbors houses about the death of your neighbors is not something you are subjected to, it is easy to hold firm on that pedestal you stand on. 
How would you have ended the war. You are able to tell as the awful problems and dilemmas, but how would you have ended that war with less death and destruction?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

Camp said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Already gave my opinion...and it didn't have anything to do with nuking civilians.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



if you can equate blockading ports with nuclear bombs you're either dishonest or just being contrary...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


I see...  you cannot muster the intellectual honesty to answer a question directly related to the soundness of your position;  we bioth therefore understand your position is based on nothing more than "OMFG NUKES!!!!"

As before:  I accept your concession.

Here's something else you won't soundly address:

Rank these events in degree of moral depravity, worst to least, with an explanation as to why they are so ranked.
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a blockade
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of land combat
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of conventional air raids
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of incendiary raids/firebombing
-Targeting and murdering ~250,000 civilians through the direct and indirect effects of a nuclear weapon.

Don't puss out now.


----------



## Camp (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


I did not ask for your opinion. I asked you how you would have resolved the ending of WWII with Japan.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

Camp said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



I already gave that opinion....and since I had nothing to do with the war it is therefore an "opinion"...try to stay focused


----------



## Camp (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


How many threads do you think you will use to evade answering the simple question that challenges the rationality of your opinion?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



There is no concession, son...if you need to declare "victory" to soothe your ego, go ahead.

You're just making up numbers and fantasy scenarios again and you want ME to debunk them. 
I already told you twice that won't work here. You can have your fantasies end however you like..If nuking civilians is acceptable to you, fine...go with it.

..I've made all my points and supported them...


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Camp said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


OMFG!!   NUKES!!!


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

Camp said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...



There is no evasion...you apparently haven't read the whole thread...read back and find what I said about other options.

But for now, since obviously you can't keep pace with the discussion or make a meaningful, coherent contribution, perhaps you should just excuse yourself from it.

I appreciate any input you may have, but please read the thread and make an effort to be sensible and polite before commenting so we can avoid mundane repetition.

I am not going to continue to talk with somebody who has no logical point to make, and doesn't stand for anything other than the sake of argument.
At this point, it's clear you do not possess the necessary intellect to post here and should probably go elsewhere.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Indeed there is.   You know you cannot defend your position and so you refuse to soundly address a question put directly it.
That is, you're running away from the conversation.
Disagree?
Given that purposely targeting and murdering civilians -- like in a blockade -- is wrong, how, exactly, does blockading Japan and starving them into submission allow us to retain the 'moral high ground"?


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



brilliant rebuttal...you're really making strong, mature points here.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Your position is built on nothing more that "OMFG!  NUKES!!!"
In that, it defeats itself.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Last time I'm going to explain this to you....if you equate blockading an island to cut off war materials from them with nuking civilians, you're just too unhinged to speak reasonably with.

you can declare "victory" now....

LMAO..


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



no...those are your words..I never said any of that...you are so wrapped up in your introspective fantasy world that you have lost touch with reality now.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


You mean this is the last time you are going to run away from a question you know serves to disprove your position.

You believe that purposely targeting and murdering civilians with a nuclear weapon is somehow more morally reprehensible than purposely targeting and murdering civilians with any other means of making war - blockade, firebombing, land combat, etc.

We both know you have, in no way shape of form, submitted a sound argument as to how this is so.
We both know that you will not even try to do so.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



No, son....I said there was no need to invade japan and there was no need to nuke them. 
We had completely defeated them militarily....a few months of strict blockades and they'd be at the end of their rope and have to ask for peace. 

There is no honor in purposely targeting civilians with nuclear weapons.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


This is, of course a lie -- you made a moral argument regarding the use of nuclear weapons, an argument you refuse to support.
Just like I said you would.


----------



## Camp (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


I am paying attention just fine. You are just trying to deflect and evade having to make your comments about a blockade and starving the Japanese into surrender, which you claim they were trying to do or at least willing to do. You ideas get shot down because you can not back up your claims. Unlike you, I have provided detailed factual information from two very objective links to portray an accurate assessment of the situation in Japan leading up to the atom bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One link shows the actual records from MacArthur giving great detail about the weapons and supplies collected by American occupation forces after the surrender. It gives an extremely accurate account and record of the Japanese preparedness for an American invasion. The other link provides a history of the bombing campaign leading up the the atomic bombings. Included are casualty figures from the 67 cities firebombed and that failed to bring about a peace or surrender request.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




anyone who has bothered to read this knows exactly what I said...and exactly what you said and they don't need your erroneous  "summary" or revisions. 
I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons. You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.

That is the difference of opinion we have.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons.
> You are not against that and in fact support it as a valid tactic.
> That is the difference of opinion we have.


Indeed so :
I live in reality, you, in fantasy.
Thank you for making that clear.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

Camp said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...




how can an island nation with no resources, no army, navy or air force be a "threat"?
LMAO...

I don't care if they had 10 billion rifles...they live on an island...they aren't going anywhere and we could control everything that entered their ports.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

M14 Shooter said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > I am against any military purposely targeting civilians with nuclear..or other weapons.
> ...



no..you're wrong..again...
LMAO..we hung german soldiers and officers for war crimes against civilians..we hung japanese soldiers and officers for war crimes against civilians...
but we're 'murican, by god!...when we kill civilians it's "different" because we're "special".....LMAO..you guys are amusing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


In fact, not in the slightest.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


Your proposed solution would have starved to death millions of civilians. That is not a guess or fantasy it is a fact. You claiming otherwise is a lie and ridiculous.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...


Starving millions to death would be targeting civilians since the Military would confiscate the food that existed.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 19, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > Camp said:
> ...





That IS a guess.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Murdering millions by starvation is what would have happened if we blockaded the Islands. That is neither fantasy nor fiction. It IS what would have happened. What makes you think a group of men that saw the destruction of two entire cities by a single bomb each and refused to surrender would not steal the food from civilians to keep the army feed?


----------



## there4eyeM (Aug 19, 2015)

What the Japanese might or might not have done would be on them. What America did do is on America.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


And yet you think that starving millions to death is better.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



you're making up numbers and statistics out of thin air with no basis in fact, gunny...speculation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


NO you are claiming that men WILLING to fight on after 2 atomic bombs would not have confiscated available food for their soldiers. You are either an IDIOT or stupid.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...




where did you come up with starving millions?...to be sure...japan has no mineral resources or oil...but they wouldn't STARVE to death...save the hyperbole...
there was no need to invade japan OR nuke civilians to bring them to heel.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



...and you're making up entire fantasy scenarios of imaginary people doing things you contrive in your own mind...I can't refute "logic" like that...LMAO... 



RetiredGySgt said:


> You are either an IDIOT or stupid.



LMAO..absolutely BRILLIANT rebuttal!..you are truly a great thinker...anyone can see that...


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 19, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



That would be their decision, not ours. Is this really so hard to understand?


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...




Actually, many people were already starving to death.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

Unkotare said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...




I don't doubt that..japan was absolutely crippled at that point. No way they were going to be able to continue any kind of war effort. Their main ally, Germany, had surrenedered and Russia was licking their chops..China had some grievances they wanted to take up with japan, too....there was no need for us to nuke civilians...or anyone else.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


The Country of Japan IMPORTS food and coal. No food no coal for fires during the coming winter. Do us the favor of actually knowing what you are talking about before you look even stupider.


----------



## regent (Aug 19, 2015)

If only we had dropped questionnaires asking the Japanese people what they preferred; fire bombing, nuking, starving, beheadings or just what. When America dropped the A bombs it was already discharging much of the military, we also live in a democracy and the government often takes the route most of the people want. The people were tired of the war, tired of  telegrams, tired of hospital ships returning, and at that time to tell the people we could end the war but the Japanese and some of the 2000 generation  might not like the way we end it so it will have to continue.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I know exactly what I'm talking about, gunny...and calling me "stupid" reveals a lot more about you than it does me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 19, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...


Then explain why you did not know that the Japanese civilians were already starving due to the fact that Japan IMPORTS food and that was stopped by the blockade? That if we continued to blockade them millions would die? In fact By August people were already starving.


----------



## Unkotare (Aug 19, 2015)

You're still making up the "millions" figure.


----------



## Rotagilla (Aug 19, 2015)

regent said:


> ..... but the Japanese and some of the 2000 generation.....


LMAO..what is the 2000 generation?

Son, I'd wager I'm older than you are...."2000 generation" LMAO......I think you're projecting.


----------



## regent (Aug 28, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> regent said:
> 
> 
> > ..... but the Japanese and some of the 2000 generation.....
> ...


I doubt if you're older.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 29, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Stop him...they damn near assassinated him!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 29, 2015)

PaintMyHouse said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> > PaintMyHouse said:
> ...


You are an idiot.  Kill yourself.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 29, 2015)

Rotagilla said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Rotagilla said:
> ...



*Absolutely yes!*  Surrender terms should NEVER be negotiated!  Surrender terms should be DICTATED!  As in: this is what is GOING to happen.  If you do not like it, tough shit!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 29, 2015)

Camp said:


> Rotagilla said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



Not to mention: had the bombs NOT been used, and the fact they COULD have been used got out, Truman thought (probably correctly) that it would get him impeached!


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 29, 2015)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Your proposed solution would have starved to death millions of civilians. That is not a guess or fantasy it is a fact. You claiming otherwise is a lie and ridiculous.



Even with US aid, 1945-46 was a lean winter for Japan.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 1, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Wrong again.


.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 2, 2022)

PaintMyHouse said:


> A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...


Neither was a civilian target.  Hiroshima was a major naval port, construction yard and military base.  The Yamato was built there as well as many Japanese warships and the shipyard was churning out suicide subs and motorboats to kill American invaders.  Nagasaki was the same thing; Musashi was built there as were many Japanese warships and it was churning out suicide subs and boats.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Neither was a civilian target.  Hiroshima was a major naval port, construction yard and military base.  The Yamato was built there as well as many Japanese warships and the shipyard was churning out suicide subs and motorboats to kill American invaders.  Nagasaki was the same thing; Musashi was built there as were many Japanese warships and it was churning out suicide subs and boats.




Thanks, I never knew that.........kinda ends that argument about Hiroshima being a civillian target....

*The keel of Yamato, the lead ship of the class,[7] was laid down at the Kure Naval Arsenal, Hiroshima, on 4 November 1937, in a dockyard that had to be adapted to accommodate her enormous hull.[8][9] The dock was deepened by one meter, and gantry cranes capable of lifting up to 350 tonnes were installed.[8][10] Extreme secrecy was maintained throughout construction,[8][11] a canopy even being erected over part of the drydock to screen the ship from view.[12] Yamato was launched on 8 August 1940, with Captain (later Vice-Admiral) Miyazato Shutoku in command.[13] A great effort was made in Japan to ensure the ships were built in extreme secrecy to prevent American intelligence officials from learning of their existence and specifications.[8][11]*









						Japanese battleship Yamato - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender
					

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.




					www.lawfareblog.com
				









						Hiroshima - the truth about the bombing -
					

Written by Kate Hudson The city of Hiroshima stands on a flat river delta on the Japanese island of Honshu. At quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August 1945, the US plane Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city centre, a busy residential and business district, crowded with people going...




					cnduk.org


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

"It was also claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Again, this just wasn’t true. Hiroshima was home to the Japanese Second Army HQ, but it was primarily a big city with a huge civilian population. About 10,000 of the total 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima were military personnel. Nagasaki had no military units and, of the total 140,000 deaths there, only about 150 were military. In total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian."


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "It was also claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Again, this just wasn’t true. Hiroshima was home to the Japanese Second Army HQ, but it was primarily a big city with a huge civilian population. About 10,000 of the total 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima were military personnel. Nagasaki had no military units and, of the total 140,000 deaths there, only about 150 were military. In total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian."


they were production centers and ports which made them military targets.


----------



## Mac-7 (Nov 2, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> they were production centers and ports which made them military targets.


Its sad that Unkotare is a teacher who has free reign to poison the minds of his students


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

"The first myth was started by President Harry Truman when he announced on Aug. 9, 1945, that “the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base … because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” Truman argued, in other words, that Hiroshima was a military target. Although Hiroshima contained some military-related industrial facilities—an army headquarters and troop-loading docks—the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "It was also claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Again, this just wasn’t true. Hiroshima was home to the Japanese Second Army HQ, but it was primarily a big city with a huge civilian population. About 10,000 of the total 200,000 deaths in Hiroshima were military personnel. Nagasaki had no military units and, of the total 140,000 deaths there, only about 150 were military. In total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian."


What about the naval base, the naval construction yard, the military headquarters and all the war material factories?  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just as much military targets as London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, and much more so than Warsaw, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Rangoon, Mandalay, Antwerp, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Southhampton.  There wasn't a major city in China, Burma, Malaysia, the UK, France, the Netherlands or Belgium that wasn't bombed by the Axis.  The attitude on both sides of the war was that civilians built the sinews of the war machine, so they were valid military targets.  Both the Luftwaffe and RAF had official positions that "dehousing" civilian workers was a laudable objective and not against the rules of warfare.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> What about the naval base, the naval construction yard, the military headquarters and all the war material factories?  Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just as much military targets as London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Dresden, Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, and much more so than Warsaw, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Rangoon, Mandalay, Antwerp, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Southhampton.  There wasn't a major city in China, Burma, Malaysia, the UK, France, the Netherlands or Belgium that wasn't bombed by the Axis.  The attitude on both sides of the war was that civilians built the sinews of the war machine, so they were valid military targets.  Both the Luftwaffe and RAF had official positions that "dehousing" civilian workers was a laudable objective and not against the rules of warfare.


You're wasting your time - he is immune to reality.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

"In total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian."


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "In total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian."




I am sure the 3-10 million civilians murdered by the Japanese during the war sympathize with this..........they were not collateral combat deaths, simply civilians murdered by the Japanese troops.

R.J. Rummel....cited in the following piece is an expert in Government mass murder statistics.....


*The estimated number of people killed by Japanese troops vary. R. J. Rummel, a professor of political science at the University of Hawaii, estimates that between 1937 and 1945, the Japanese military murdered from nearly three to over ten million people, most likely six million Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Malaysians, Indonesians, Filipinos and Indochinese, among others, including European, American and Australian prisoners of war. According to Rummel, "This democide [i.e., death by government] was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture."[1] According to Rummel, in China alone, from 1937 to 1945, approximately 3.9 million Chinese were killed, mostly civilians, as a direct result of the Japanese operations and a total of 10.2 million Chinese were killed in the course of the war.[67] According to the British historian M. R. D. Foot, civilian deaths were between 10 million and 20 million.[68] Some historians claim that up to 30 million people were killed, most of them civilians.**[69]*

According to British historian Mark Felton:









						Japanese war crimes - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> I am sure the 3-10 million civilians murdered by the Japanese during the war sympathize with this..........


I hold THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to a higher standard than you seem to.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

Some people here seem to think we used the atomic bombs as an act of revenge on behalf of China.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "In total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian."


And those civilians supported the war economy of Japan just like the British, Italian, Russian and German civilians supported their war economy and were killed in massed bombing raids by both Allied and Axis aircraft.  US civilians also supported the war effort, remember "Rosie the rivetter"?  Fortunately, most American citizens were immune to direct losses from the war with the exception of the five children and their caretaker killed by a Japanese "Balloon Bomb" in 1945.  The Japanese were planning to end that immunity, the designed cargo for the Balloon Bombs was biological warfare germs and incendiaries.  They launched nine thousand bombs loaded with incendiaries, a thousand of which reached North America.  They have been found in Canada, Mexico and as far east in the USA as Michigan.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

Again, someone doesn't seem to think very much of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which I hold to a higher standard than our enemies during wartime. Do you wish we had thrown Germans into ovens after winning the war in Europe? I think we'd a lot better than that. I guess you don't.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> I hold THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA to a higher standard than you seem to.




We ended the war and saved lots of lives doing it..........


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Again, someone doesn't seem to think very much of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which I hold to a higher standard than our enemies during wartime. Do you wish we had thrown Germans into ovens after winning the war in Europe? I think we'd a lot better than that. I guess you don't.




Yeah......as General May pointed out, he killed more Germans with conventional bombs than we did to the Japanese with the atomic bomb


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We ended the war and saved lots of lives doing it..........


The war was already won, and we incinerated hundreds of thousands of starving women, children, and the elderly just to try out a new "toy" for fdr's legacy.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> The war was already won, and we incinerated hundreds of thousands of starving women, children, and the elderly just to try out a new "toy" for fdr's legacy.


The war wasn't won.  The Japanese were still fighting, still killing our POWs, still killing thousands of Chinese, Burmese and Malaysian civilians every day, still launching kamikaze attacks, still torpedoing our ships.  For your information, the USS Indianapolis was sunk by a Japanese submarine during this time.  Wars aren't over until one side or the other acknowledges defeat and the Japanese were far from defeated in their minds.  Look at teh "peace" proposals they tendered through the Swedes.  Nothing more substantive than a return to status quo ante December 6th 1941.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> The war wasn't won.  ...


*ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY*​(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."






						Hiroshima: Quotes
					

Quotes from prominent Americans on why the atomic bombing of Japan was probably wrong.



					www.doug-long.com


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

"
*HERBERT HOOVER*​"On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

Richard Norton Smith, _An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover_, pg. 347.

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Hoover wrote to _Army and Navy Journal_ publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."

quoted from Gar Alperovitz, _The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb_, pg. 635.

"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

- quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., _Judgment at the Smithsonian_, pg. 142

Hoover biographer Richard Norton Smith has written: "Use of the bomb had besmirched America's reputation, he [Hoover] told friends. It ought to have been described in graphic terms before being flung out into the sky over Japan."

Richard Norton Smith, _An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover_, pg. 349-350.

In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."


----------



## BackAgain (Nov 2, 2022)

Preacher said:


> In a war FDR and his jewish advisers got us into. World would be a much better place today had Hitler won and the Jew lost.


Disgraceful post. And beyond just wrong. It’s brain dead and anti-Semitic.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "
> *HERBERT HOOVER*​"On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
> 
> Richard Norton Smith, _An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover_, pg. 347.
> ...


.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> *ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY*​(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
> "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
> 
> "The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
> ...


And the bomber mafia was saying Japan was defeated by bomber raids. The only people looking at the real situation on the ground were the grunts.  A lot of flag officers had ethics issues with nukes, oddly enough they had no ethical issues with starving an entire race to death, or incinerating millions by firebombing attacks or even killing tens of thousands by random naval gunfire.  Leahy never saw combat, he was a staff puke ivy tower flag officer who never made a life or death decision in his entire career.  He retired in 1939 and as a close friend of FDR got recalled to first serve as ambassador to Vichy France until 1942, then FDR drafted him as what amounted to the White House Chief of Staff.  He, like Doug MacArthur, were products of an earlier age who thought warfare could be fought like knights in armor.
If you read Leahy’s bio on Wikki, he was a weasel who played patronage games, accepted a Navy Cross for commanding a transport on ONE voyage carrying troops to France during WWI.  That was his first and only command during his career.  The rest of the time he was a staff officer.  He willing supported the firebombing attacks that burned millions of Japanese civilians to death, but quibbled at the use of the “Paris Gun” in WWI by the Germans to randomly shell Paris and the use of nukes despite being active in supporting the development of the bombs,


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 2, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "
> *HERBERT HOOVER*​"On May 28, 1945, Hoover visited President Truman and suggested a way to end the Pacific war quickly: "I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."
> 
> Richard Norton Smith, _An Uncommon Man: The Triumph of Herbert Hoover_, pg. 347.
> ...


The Japanese government knew they could surrender at any time.  They refused.  Hoover’s idea was beyond ludicrous, the Japanese people had no voice in their government.  Japan was essentially governed as a feudal state by the military, even the Mikado was mostly a rubber stamp for the decisions reached by the military.  Surrendering was the first independent action ever taken by Hirohito.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> The war was already won, and we incinerated hundreds of thousands of starving women, children, and the elderly just to try out a new "toy" for fdr's legacy.




Nope.......Japan refused to surrender and from our experiences fighting them during the rest of the war where they inflicted massive casaulties on our troops when they refused to surrender made dropping the bombs the quickest way to end the war.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> .




A little truth.....

*Truman wanted to use the bombs to avoid invading the Japanese mainland. The recent battle for Okinawa resulted in an estimated 50,000 American casualties—the bloodiest of all the American battles of the Pacific War. Truman’s military planners warned that invasions of the Japanese mainland to end the war might cost the equivalent of 20 more Okinawa campaigns.

Japan’s leaders swore that they would fight to the bitter end, bragging of their planned sacrifice as the “Glorious Death of One Hundred Million.” They planned to draw on 10,000 suicide planes and 10 million soldiers, militiamen, and irregulars.
-----
Thousands of Allied prisoners, as well as civilians in Japanese-occupied China, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific, were dying each day the war dragged on. More than 1 million Japanese soldiers abroad were still brutally killing the innocent.*

*There were still other less publicized considerations. The incendiary B-29 bombing campaign from the distant Mariana Islands had already killed far more Japanese than would the two atomic bombs.
------

With new airfields on Okinawa, Gen. Curtis LeMay envisioned a far greater force of four-engine bombers to be sent on daily missions against Japan. LeMay would have had at his disposal nearly 10,000 four-engine bombers, including B-29s, along with transfers of idle B-24s, B-17s, and British Lancaster bombers after the surrender of Germany three months earlier.*

*The ensuing napalm inferno might have precluded the invasion of Japan. But more nonstop firestorms also would have caused far more Japanese deaths than the two atomic bombs—at a time when Japan was already blockaded by the U.S. Navy and running out of food and supplies.



In other words, the novelty of the two horrific atomic bombs helped to shock the Japanese emperor into a sudden surrender. And the abrupt end of the Pacific War saved millions of lives—whether Asians under brutal Japanese occupation, Allied soldiers fighting against Japanese expeditionary armies, or Japanese civilians who likely would have been incinerated by an unimaginable second round of the firebombing campaign.
*










						The Bombs of August › American Greatness
					

On Aug. 6, 1945, the United States dropped a uranium-fueled atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, another U.S. Army Air Forces B-29 repeated the attack on Nagasaki, Japan…




					amgreatness.com


----------



## DudleySmith (Nov 3, 2022)

There Are No Civilians in Japan | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans
					

Allied military planners faced a bitter truth as they planned for a possible invasion of Japan: there were no distinctions between soldiers and civilians.




					www.nationalww2museum.org
				




There Are No Civilians in Japan​
....

*On July 21, 1945, a senior US Army Air Force intelligence officer in the Pacific distributed a report declaring: “The entire population of Japan is a proper Military Target . . . THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS IN JAPAN.” Those seeing this for the first time think it represents hyperbole at best, racist sanction for mass extermination at worst. It was neither. This document does provide a portal to see exactly how the summer of 1945 looked to Americans, particularly those directing or participating in final operations against Japan.*

...

*The Japanese armed forces burgeoned in 1945 under urgent mobilization from about 4.5 million men under arms to over 6 million by August. But in March, Japan mustered a vast additional body of combatants: every single male age 15 to 60 and every single female age 17 to 40. This inducted about a quarter or more of Japan’s total population, about 18 to 20 million people. Japan lacked uniforms or any other visible marker to distinguish this new sea of combatants from the remaining civilian population. Multiple millions of these nearly mobilized former male and female civilians now combatants, would be in the Kyushu invasion area.

This brings us to what prompted the assessment that there were “no civilians in Japan.” It represented a reaction to the Japanese government’s measure to obliterate any practical means for US servicemen to distinguish combatants from noncombatants in Japan. The dire implication of this was no surprise to Americans. From 1942 Americans learned that Japanese servicemen regarded surrender as unthinkable. Virtually every Japanese unit fought near to annihilation—a record unparalleled in modern history. Voluntary surrenders were rare. More often, prisoners were only those Japanese left by wounds or debilitation too helpless to take their own life. And there was ample evidence that Japanese soldiers and sailors would use the ruse of surrender to kill unwary enemies—a fate that befell, for instance, one of John F. Kennedy’s shipmates in the South Pacific.

...

When radio intelligence uncovered the stunning realization that the Japanese had anticipated the exact site of invasion and had mustered a fearful mass of ground and air defenders, including millions of erstwhile civilians, American leaders turned to contemplate radical and ruthless alternatives to invasion.*

Not sure if the number includes the 1.2 million in China and more in SE Asia or not, but no matter re invading Japan. Unkotare is just a sick little shit eating deviant. Half of Australia's deaths were tortures and murders in Jap prison camps. Unkotare gets woodies over Japs and their despicable sub-human 'culture'.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

77 years later and some are still parroting wartime propaganda and engaging in the conscious-soothing practice of dehumanizing an enemy that long ago became one of our staunchest allies. Weak-minded fools are so easy to manipulate.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

77th Anniversary of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings: Revisiting the Record | National Security Archive
					

Washington, D.C., August 8, 2022 – After years of research and planning, U.S. officials and scientists overseeing the Manhattan Project were startlingly unprepared for the emergence of evidence of the long-term effects of radiation generated by the atomic bomb – even after the Trinity test in...




					nsarchive.gwu.edu


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

Hiroshima: Quotes
					

Quotes from prominent Americans on why the atomic bombing of Japan was probably wrong.



					www.doug-long.com


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction
					

How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

Clipping from Chicago Tribune - Newspapers.com
					

Clipping found in Chicago Tribune in Chicago, Illinois on Aug 14, 1965.




					www.newspapers.com


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yeah......as General May pointed out, he killed more Germans with conventional bombs than we did to the Japanese with the atomic bomb


We also killed more Japs with conventional bombs than we did with nuclear.  More died in the fire bombings than both nukes combined.


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2022)

The Japs did it to themselves.

They did at Okinawa.

They thought that if they fought to the last man at Okinawa and caused tremendous American casualties then that would make the Allies think twice about invading Japan.

It actually work.  We decided we didn't want to play that game and decided to nuke them instead.

By the time of the Okinawa invasion the Japs were defeated.  The war was over except how many casualties there were going to be before the the Allies prevailed.  If the Japs had surrendered at Okinawa then the war would have ended with the same terms as it it did later with many more casualties.

The Japs screwed themselves.  Stubborn sonofabitches and they paid the price.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2022)

Flash said:


> It actually work.  We decided we didn't want to play that game and decided to nuke them instead.


Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> 77 years later and some are still parroting wartime propaganda and engaging in the conscious-soothing practice of dehumanizing an enemy that long ago became one of our staunchest allies. Weak-minded fools are so easy to manipulate.




And someone, like you, who didn't fight the Japanese on those islands can dictate from the future how those people should have dealt with the monsters of the Japanese military....


----------



## DudleySmith (Nov 3, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Weak-minded fools are so easy to manipulate.



Like you for instance, believing you can sell your bullshit.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And someone, like you, who didn't fight the Japanese on those islands can dictate from the future how those people should have dealt with the monsters of the Japanese military....


Did _you_ fight in WWII?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Did _you_ fight in WWII?



Nope, but I’m not saying they were wrong.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope, but I’m not saying they were wrong.


So, you didn't fight in WWII but _you _are allowed to have an opinion?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 3, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> So, you didn't fight in WWII but _you _are allowed to have an opinion?


you keep claiming your opinion is fact.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

I keep posting links.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 3, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> I keep posting links.


to no actual evidence the newspaper you cite has no actual facts backed up by any actual evidence. The supposed Mac letter you cannot link to and is nowhere to be found in the US Government archives. You cannot link to a single member of the Big 6 in Japan ever offering to surrender. I can and have linked to actual proof that all the Japanese Government offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 3, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> So, you didn't fight in WWII but _you _are allowed to have an opinion?


You are allowed to have an alternate OPINION; you are not allowed to have alternate FACTS.  You have no facts; you have opinions based upon statements of people who COULD have opposed the bombs at the time but decided not to.


----------



## Unkotare (Nov 3, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> You are allowed to have an alternate OPINION; you are not allowed to have alternate FACTS.  You have no facts; you have opinions based upon statements of people who COULD have opposed the bombs at the time but decided not to.


I have provided link after link chock-full of facts. I have provided quotations from key figures in the US military and government of the time. You just can't consider anything that might fall outside of a comfortable narrative you have unreflectively clung to all your life.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 6, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> I have provided link after link chock-full of facts. I have provided quotations from key figures in the US military and government of the time. You just can't consider anything that might fall outside of a comfortable narrative you have unreflectively clung to all your life.


You’ve provided links to revisionist history and officials that had no contemporary knowledge of events.


----------



## Stryder50 (Dec 11, 2022)

Revisionist history and a taste of what USAmerica haters would promote.
Note that the USA and UK bore the brunt of fighting and defeating Japan and the USSR only showed up after it was mostly done and over with, just to try and snatch what booty it could.
The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did​Have decades of nuclear policy been based on a lie?​







						The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did
					

Have decades of nuclear policy been based on a lie?




					getpocket.com
				



BTW, this may be substance for a different thread topic.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 11, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> You’ve provided links to revisionist history and officials that had no contemporary knowledge of events.


Incorrect.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 11, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did​


Yeah.... absolutely absurd.
Russia declared war 6 days before Japan surrendered.
The US destroyed Japan's cities, her ability to import fuel or food,, her navy, her air force -- AND dropped two atomic bombs...
... but the Soviet invasion of _Manchuria _forced the surrender.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 20, 2022)

PaintMyHouse said:


> No, they were not.  Terror works, there in Germany.  That's why we bombed what we did.


Both were functioning military bases both had shipyards that were busy building kamikaze mini subs, boats and other weapons.  Yamato was built in Hiroshima and Musashi was built in Nagasaki


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> Revisionist history and a taste of what USAmerica haters would promote.
> Note that the USA and UK bore the brunt of fighting and defeating Japan and the USSR only showed up after it was mostly done and over with, just to try and snatch what booty it could.
> The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan … Stalin Did​Have decades of nuclear policy been based on a lie?​
> 
> ...



Interesting article.  Too bad it fails to even mention the actual discussions of the actual leaders of Japan at the time.

Like claiming at the start they were about to surrender.  Anybody that has researched the actual meetings of the Big Six knows that is a lie.  The morning of the first bombing, they voted unanimously 6 to 0 to continue the war to the end, no matter what that would be.

And in their very meetings, they discussed the attack by the USSR, the two bombings by the US, and they had intelligence that stated the US had over 100 more bombs ready to go in days.  And in their following discussions until they were deadlocked, that was their main obsession.  They really did not consider the attack by the Soviets as big of a deal, as they were already in the process of evacuating their forces in Asia back to Japan.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Both were functioning military bases both had shipyards that were busy building kamikaze mini subs, boats and other weapons.  Yamato was built in Hiroshima and Musashi was built in Nagasaki



Hiroshima was also the main command center and logistics base for the Southern Army.  And of those in Hiroshima, 1 in 5 was military.

Not many cities have that high of a ratio of military to civilians, outside of major command and assembly bases.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 21, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Both were functioning military bases both had shipyards that were busy building kamikaze mini subs, boats and other weapons.  Yamato was built in Hiroshima and Musashi was built in Nagasaki


No need to make excuses.
Japan chose to go to war with the US.
They asked for the thunder, and they got it.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> Hiroshima was also the main command center and logistics base for the Southern Army.  And of those in Hiroshima, 1 in 5 was military.
> 
> Not many cities have that high of a ratio of military to civilians, outside of major command and assembly bases.



And I am laughing, because poop head did not agree with that statement.

Tell me then poopie, was Hiroshima not the headquarters of the Second General Army?  As well as the 59th Army and the 224th Division?  As well as the 3rd Anti-Aircraft Division?  Were over 20,000 soldiers of the IJA not killed there?

You did not like anything I just posted.  But tell me, is what I just posted incorrect?  Because I am not expressing opinions, simply facts.  And hitting "dislike" on facts simply shows that you will ignore anything you do not like, and not even try to claim it is incorrect or inaccurate.

That is known as "being childish".


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> I keep posting links.


^^^^


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> I have provided link after link chock-full of facts. I have provided quotations from key figures in the US military and government of the time. You just can't consider anything that might fall outside of a comfortable narrative you have unreflectively clung to all your life.


^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

"the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."









						Hiroshima and the Myths of Military Targets and Unconditional Surrender
					

Every year, in early August, new articles appear that debate whether the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 was justified. Earlier this month, the 75th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, was no exception.




					www.lawfareblog.com


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

"We find no evidence that anyone within the Truman administration undertook a formal legal analysis of the attack options in 1945. Nonetheless, intuitive moral concerns and background legal principles were often raised, especially by Stimson. But the archival record makes clear that such concerns were muted and rationalized away. Killing civilians was the primary purpose of the Hiroshima bombing. "


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

"The Interim Committee’s recommendation was an endorsement of terror bombing with a legal veneer. 
At bottom, Stimson wanted to kill as many workers and their families possible. "


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."


10% of 140-180k is 14-18,000
That's as many as three Japanese army divisions.
Kinda defeated your own position there, bub.


Unkotare said:


> "We find no evidence that anyone within the Truman administration undertook a formal legal analysis of the attack options in 1945


The US was in the business of destroying Japanese cities at the wholesale level since the B29s moved to Tinian in December 1944
Did anyone consider the legality of that?
If not, then why would anyone consider the "legality" of leveling Hiroshima?
If so, why would they reach a different conclusion re: Hiroshima?


Unkotare said:


> At bottom, Stimson wanted to kill as many workers and their families possible. "


Your enemy's means of production is a legitimate strategic target.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


^^^^^


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> ^^^^^








						0th anniversary of VJ Day: Thank the atomic bomb for saving millions of lives
					

I keep posting links.  ^^^^



					www.usmessageboard.com
				



^^^^^^^^


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> 10% of 140-180k is 14-18,000
> That's as many as three Japanese army divisions.
> Kinda defeated your own position there, bub.



And the actual number was over 20,000.  So that means it was over 10%.

Notice, he can not actually refute any of the actual facts.  So he just repeats himself and spam posts meaningless quotes over and over again.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Mac-7 (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Wrong again.


No, he’s correct

You are misinforming your students


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

"Even today many people genuinely believe that the bomb was necessary to bring about a Japanese surrender and to avoid the need for an invasion of Japan by the US, which might have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. But extensive scholarly research in the US, using primary sources from the time, shows that this just wasn’t true."






						Hiroshima - the truth about the bombing -
					

Written by Kate Hudson The city of Hiroshima stands on a flat river delta on the Japanese island of Honshu. At quarter past eight on the morning of 6 August 1945, the US plane Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on the city centre, a busy residential and business district, crowded with people going...




					cnduk.org
				




"By the time the bomb was ready for use, Japan was ready to surrender. As General Dwight Eisenhower said, ‘Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face. It was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing.’ "

"It was also claimed that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Again, this just wasn’t true. ...In total, over 95 per cent of the combined casualties of the two cities were civilian."


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

Mac-7 said:


> No, he’s correct
> 
> You are misinforming your students


You're also wrong.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "By the time the bomb was ready for use, Japan was ready to surrender. As General Dwight Eisenhower said, ‘Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face. It was not necessary to hit them with that awful thing.’ "



First of all, how would Ike know that?  He was in Europe, and as far as I am aware not talking to any of the Big Six.

Truth is, they had been rejecting the pleas of their own Soviet Ambassador to get serious about surrender before it was too late.  The morning of the bombing they once again voted 6 to 0 to continue the war until the end.  Their very own Prime Minister outright rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and said it would be ignored.  

In fact, their own Soviet Ambassador was refused permission to even discuss any terms other than what the Big Six gave him permission to discuss.  And that was not a thing like surrender, but a _pro quo ante bellum_.  In other words, ending the war with a cease fire, and all combatants return to their December 1941 lines.

Ending the fighting and trying to pretend that everything after 8 December 1941 did not happen is not a "surrender".  In fact, even when trying to propose those terms repeatedly, they still wanted the upper hand.  With much of the territory they had captured being declared "demilitarized", and their own military patrolling it.

So anybody that tries to claim Japan was trying to "surrender" is an idiot, or lying.  Because they were trying to do a reset and act like the war never happened.

Those are the facts.  And once again, I know Poop Head can not refute actual facts, so he will just press not like yet again, and send yet another unfounded quote.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 21, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "Even today many people genuinely believe that the bomb was necessary to bring about a Japanese surrender and to avoid the need for an invasion of Japan by the US, which might have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. But extensive scholarly research in the US, using primary sources from the time, shows that this just wasn’t true."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


^^^^^


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> ^^^^^^^^^


10% of 140-180k is 14-18,000
That's as many as three Japanese army divisions.
Kinda defeated your own position there, bub.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

Total Casualties | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com
					

The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by The Manhattan Engineer District, June 29, 1946. Total Casualties. There has been great difficulty in estimating the total casualties in the Japanese cities as a result of the atomic bombing. The extensive destruction of civil installations...




					www.atomicarchive.com


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "Even today many people genuinely believe that the bomb was necessary to bring about a Japanese surrender and to avoid the need for an invasion of Japan by the US, which might have cost hundreds of thousands of lives. But extensive scholarly research in the US, using primary sources from the time, shows that this just wasn’t true."


There's no need for the US, or anyone else, to justify nuking Japan.
They called down the thunder, and they got it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> 10% of 140-180k is 14-18,000
> That's as many as three Japanese army divisions.
> Kinda defeated your own position there, bub.
> 
> ...


^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

Q. How many people died because of the atomic bombing? - åºƒå³¶å¸‚å…¬å¼ãƒ›ãƒ¼ãƒ ãƒšãƒ¼ã‚¸ï½œå›½éš›å¹³å’Œæ–‡åŒ–éƒ½å¸‚


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects | K=1 Project
					






					k1project.columbia.edu


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Q. How many people died because of the atomic bombing? - åºƒå³¶å¸‚å…¬å¼ãƒ›ãƒ¼ãƒ ãƒšãƒ¼ã‚¸ï½œå›½éš›å¹³å’Œæ–‡åŒ–éƒ½å¸‚


Less than the number of people who died in 6 months of  incendiary raids.
Less destruction, too.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule1?country=us
		


"In the 1930s, both the United States and Britain refrained from targeting civilians in wartime bombings regarding such actions as savage and ruthless. ....”   President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the issue as well calling civilian bombing “inhuman barbarism.”


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule1?country=us
> 
> 
> 
> "In the 1930s, both the United States and Britain refrained from targeting civilians in wartime bombings regarding such actions as savage and ruthless. ....”   President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the issue as well calling civilian bombing “inhuman barbarism.”


Good thing we didn't do that - right?


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

Targeting Civilians
		



Unkotare said:


> "the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


^^^^^


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> 10% of 140-180k is 14-18,000
> That's as many as three Japanese army divisions.
> Kinda defeated your own position there, bub.


^^^^^^


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 22, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Targeting Civilians
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^^


LOL you are a loser unable to articulate a point you just keep reposting debunked or stupid quotes or links.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL you are a loser unable to articulate a point you just keep reposting debunked or stupid quotes or links.


That's what happens when you hate something, but the facts aren't on your side.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 22, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule1?country=us
> 
> 
> 
> "In the 1930s, both the United States and Britain refrained from targeting civilians in wartime bombings regarding such actions as savage and ruthless. ....”   President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the issue as well calling civilian bombing “inhuman barbarism.”


And as soon as they went to war with the Axis who practiced terror bombing, they renounced that position.  The RAF actually had a policy of "dehousing" German civilians to disrupt war production.  At least the USAAF TRIED to hit the factories rather than civilian housing.  With Japan's record of atrocities, no one really cared about the deaths of Japanese civilians since their military had been raping and murdering civilians since 1936 aa a policy.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> And as soon as they went to war with the Axis who practiced terror bombing, they renounced that position.


The USAAF began plans for firebombing Japan in 1943 - they estimated it would kill >500k people and render >8 million people homeless.   One raid  on Tokyo alone killed around 100k.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were natural extensions of this campaign.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

Targeting civilians and health care in war is unconscionable
					

The Russian attacks on Ukrainian civilians, hospitals and clinics are outrageous and must stop now. Learn how you can aid medical relief efforts.




					www.ama-assn.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The US was in the business of destroying Japanese cities at the wholesale level since the B29s moved to Tinian in December 1944
> Did anyone consider the legality of that?
> If not, then why would anyone consider the "legality" of leveling Hiroshima?
> If so, why would they reach a different conclusion re: Hiroshima?
> ...


^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

The Ethics of Bombing Civilians After World War II:  The Persistence of Norms Against Targeting Civilians in the Korean War  | Sciences Po Mass Violence and Resistance - Research Network
					

This article was adapted for The Asia-Pacific Journal (http://www.japanfocus.org) from a chapter in Matthew Evangelista and Henry Shue (eds.), The American Way of Bombing: How Ethical and Legal Norms Change, from Flying Fortresses to Drones (Cornell University Press, 2014) .




					www.sciencespo.fr
				




"On the eve of World War II, American leaders strongly condemned the bombing of civilians. "

"...the U.S. Senate issued its own “unqualified condemnation of the inhuman bombing of civilian populations” in 1938."


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 22, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> The USAAF began plans for firebombing Japan in 1943 - they estimated it would kill >500k people and render >8 million people homeless.   One raid  on Tokyo alone killed around 100k.
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were natural extensions of this campaign.


^^^^^


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

"...in 1939, President Franklin D. Roosevelt urgently appealed to all sides in the hostilities to affirm publicly that their armed forces “shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations..."


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

"...Roosevelt feared that hundreds of thousands of “innocent human beings” would be harmed if the belligerent nations sunk to “this form of inhuman barbarism ..."


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

"... judged from the perspective of what American leaders said about the bombing of civilians, little changed during World War II, even at the height of the air campaigns against Germany and Japan. They continued to talk as if they were trying to uphold the prohibition against targeting civilians..."


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

"...When American planes joined the British Royal Air Force in burning Dresden in February 1945, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson assured the public: “We will continue to bomb military targets and . . . there has been no change in the policy against conducting ‘terror bombings’ against civilian populations.”


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

"Although Americans were quiet about the harm to civilians resulting from U.S. bombing, they spoke out loudly against German and Japanese atrocities. Condemnation and prosecution of Axis atrocities after World War II provided the strongest reinforcement of the norm against attacking civilians."


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

"in 1949 when U.S. Navy admirals attacked their Air Force colleagues in a dramatic set of Congressional hearings. During this “Revolt of the Admirals” as the media came to call it, a string of admirals deployed arguments that appealed to the norm against targeting civilians in raising their concerns over military policy and the defense budget. At the hearings, Rear Admiral Ralph A. Ofstie contended that "strategic air warfare, as practiced in the past and as proposed for the future, is militarily unsound and of limited effect, is morally wrong, and is decidedly harmful to the stability of a postwar world." These charges prompted the Air Force to clarify its stance on bombing civilians. The Secretary of the Air Force W. Stuart Symington said bluntly: "It has been stated that the Air Force favors mass bombing of civilians. That is not true. "


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 22, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule1?country=us
> 
> 
> 
> "In the 1930s, both the United States and Britain refrained from targeting civilians in wartime bombings regarding such actions as savage and ruthless. ....”   President Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the issue as well calling civilian bombing “inhuman barbarism.”



And the general term used in cases like that is "reciprocity".  Both sides in all theaters promised to not target civilian centers, as well as not use chemical weapons, and all other things in the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

However, that broke down, almost always by the Axis powers.  Germany started targeting civilian centers in England, specifically their massive bombing raids on London.  And once they started doing that, the Allies started responding in kind.

Japan never refrained from bombing civilians.  Starting in China even before they pulled the US into the war.  This was spectacularly ignored when General MacArthur declared Manila an "open city", and that there would be no defensive action taken as the Japanese moved into it.  However, Japan ignored that and not only bombed it mercilessly, they also assaulted the city and swept it clean, just as they had done previously in China.  Total deaths (including the execution of POWs, and over 60,000 civilians needlessly killed) resulted in Commanding General for the attack and occupation General Tomoyuki Yamashita being tried and convicted of war crimes, and executed for them.

It is rather stupid for people to cry over the deaths of "innocent civilians" in Japan, when they themselves killed millions in exactly the same way.  Purposefully bombing civilian areas that really did have no military presence or activities at all.  Or bombing and assaulting civilian cities even after they had been declared "open" and they could walk in with no resistance.

So yes, when one side does that, the other tends to do the same thing.  However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both major military centers.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 22, 2022)

"Symington distinguished between targeting industry which unavoidably killed civilians, and targeting civilians generally and directly. When confronted starkly with the idea of accepting the targeting of civilians as a legitimate method of war, the Air Force and almost every participate in the 1949 hearings avoided such a course."


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2022)




----------



## mikegriffith1 (Dec 23, 2022)

Little-Acorn said:


> Military planners estimated that the coming invasion of Japan in 1945-1946 would cost a quarter million Allied lives, plus several million Japanese military and civilian lives.
> 
> Instead, the atomic bomb destroyed almost no Allied lives and less than half a million Japanese lives from all causes. Horrific, but far less than the invasion would have taken.
> 
> ...



This American militarist propaganda is just about as bad as the propaganda that the Japanese militarists put out during the war.

I have personally documented for you that we now know from Japanese archival materials and other primary sources that, weeks before Hiroshima, most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender on the sole condition that the emperor not be deposed. Hiroshima was unnecessary, and many senior figures in our government knew it. All we had to do was give Japan private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, but Truman refused to do this, and his refusal enabled the militarists to prevent an earlier surrender.

There is nothing patriotic about lying about the unnecessary slaughter of hundreds of thousands of women and children. I notice you guys never mention that General Eisenhower and General MacArthur both said that we did *not* need to nuke Japan to end the war.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 23, 2022)

mikegriffith1 said:


> I have personally documented for you that we now know from Japanese archival materials and other primary sources that, weeks before Hiroshima, most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender on the sole condition that the emperor not be deposed. Hiroshima was unnecessary, and many senior figures in our government knew it.


If, on August 6th and August 9th, we had not nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but instead burned them to the ground with incendiaries - like we did every other major city in Japan - no one would care to the point that almost no one outside Japan would know those cities existed.

Why then does it matter that we used 3 planes and one bomb rather than 100 planes and 4,000 bombs?


Just FYI:  One of my favorite footnoes in history:
20 July 1945: 1 B-29 drops a Pumpkin bomb (bomb with same ballistics as the Fat Man nuclear bomb) through overcast. It was aimed at, but missed, the Imperial Palace


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 23, 2022)

mikegriffith1 said:


> This American militarist propaganda is just about as bad as the propaganda that the Japanese militarists put out during the war.
> 
> I have personally documented for you that we now know from Japanese archival materials and other primary sources that, weeks before Hiroshima, most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender on the sole condition that the emperor not be deposed. Hiroshima was unnecessary, and many senior figures in our government knew it. All we had to do was give Japan private assurance that the emperor would not be deposed, but Truman refused to do this, and his refusal enabled the militarists to prevent an earlier surrender.
> 
> There is nothing patriotic about lying about the unnecessary slaughter of hundreds of thousands of women and children. I notice you guys never mention that General Eisenhower and General MacArthur both said that we did *not* need to nuke Japan to end the war.


Only when they became politicians did they say such things and there is no actual record of them opposing the bombing of Japan with conventional bombers that caused much more death and destruction over a longer period, as to Japan they never wanted to surrender what they wanted was a ceasefire and were willing to return to 41 start lines except in China.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 23, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Only when they became politicians did they say such things and there is no actual record of them opposing the bombing of Japan with conventional bombers that caused much more death and destruction over a longer period, as to Japan they never wanted to surrender what they wanted was a ceasefire and were willing to return to 41 start lines except in China.


you can disagree all you want poop boy but the actual records of what was offered and talked about and public words of the general are all public knowledge


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 23, 2022)

"more active efforts to avoid civilian casualties in recent American wars such as the expanded role of operational law and military lawyers in targeting may be more a result of the rise of counterinsurgency thinking than evidence of a growing belief among Americans that killing civilians is wrong. "


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 23, 2022)

mikegriffith1 said:


> I have personally documented for you that we now know from Japanese archival materials and other primary sources that, weeks before Hiroshima, most of Japan's leaders were ready to surrender on the sole condition that the emperor not be deposed.



Then why was that not the position that Ambassador Naotake Sato was presenting to the Soviet Union in the final days of the war?

The fact is, that is the only attempt by Japan to end the war, and their own ambassador knew it was a failure.



> The sole Japanese diplomatic effort sanctioned by the key Japanese leadership was to secure the Soviet Union as a mediator to negotiate an end to the war. That effort ran through Sato. Decoded Japanese cables made American leaders fully aware that none of the Japanese diplomatic or military representatives in Europe who presented themselves as seeking peace on behalf of Japan carried actual sanction.
> 
> Japan’s one authorized diplomatic initiative required two things: 1) concessions that would enlist the Soviets as mediators; and 2) *Japanese terms to end the war*. Sato relentlessly exposed the fact that Japan never completed either of these two fundamental steps.
> 
> ...











						"Pretty Little Phrases": Japanese Diplomacy in 1945 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans
					

Misguided Japanese diplomacy in 1945 helped to ensure that the war would not have a peaceful end.




					www.nationalww2museum.org
				




Notice the part I bolded, that it would conclude with Japanese Terms.  In other words, they would only end the war on terms they themselves set, and nothing else.  That is not a surrender, that is absolutely nothing like a surrender.

But please, feel free to go through all of the telegrams between Sato and Togo.  Find in them for us anywhere where Togo authorized a surrender.






						Nuclear Files: Library: Correspondence: Telegrams: Togo-Sato
					

Japanese Peace feelers in the Soviet Union



					www.nuclearfiles.org
				




But I can promise, you will not find it.  Because he never gave that instruction to his Ambassador.

Do not confuse an attempt to end the war with surrender.  Japan wanted an armistice, resetting everything to how it was before December 1941.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 24, 2022)

"Many Americans contemplating these results today will be shaken by the willingness of their fellow citizens to support the intentional killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians. "


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 24, 2022)

"In World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, the United States inflicted hundreds of thousands (or more) civilian casualties on its adversaries. A large proportion of these deaths resulted from the intentional targeting of civilian populations."


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 24, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "In World War II, Korea, and Vietnam, the United States inflicted hundreds of thousands (or more) civilian casualties on its adversaries. A large proportion of these deaths resulted from the intentional targeting of civilian populations."


In WWII Germany, Italy and Japan targeted and deliberately killed MILLIONS of civilians.  The PRVN killed hundreds of thousands of it OWN citizens as well as those of the RVN, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand during Vietnam.  The DPRK killed at least tens of thousands of ROK civilians during the Korean War.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 24, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> In WWII Germany, Italy and Japan targeted and deliberately killed MILLIONS of civilians.  The PRVN killed hundreds of thousands of it OWN citizens as well as those of the RVN, Cambodia, Laos and Thailand during Vietnam.  The DPRK killed at least tens of thousands of ROK civilians during the Korean War.


So, you think it should be US policy to target and kill civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other nations?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 24, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> So, you think it should be US policy to target and kill civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other nations?


The US has not targeted civilians.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 24, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> So, you think it should be US policy to target and kill civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other nations?


we bomb military targets including manufacturing sites we don't control where the enemy puts them


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 24, 2022)

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7591/9780801454578-005/pdf


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 24, 2022)

"The most commonly articulated argument for the decline in the intentional targeting of civilian populations by the United States since 1945 focuses on the increasing internalization by Americans of the international norm of noncombatant immunity. Although the principle that civilians deserve at least some protection from the horrors of combat is one of the oldest rules of warfare, many scholars assert that the norm began to spread faster and generate a much higher degree of compliance after World War II and the entry into force of the Fourth Geneva Convention in 1949.11 Airpower expert Ward Thomas, for example, contends that “the bombing norm has slowly recovered from the catastrophe of World War II."


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 24, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> So, you think it should be US policy to target and kill civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other nations?


Collateral damage is inevitable in war.  But the only real way to enforce the Laws of War is reciprocity. So when your enemies violate the rules you have to balance the scales.  We stopped doing that after WWII and that’s why we keep losing wars and our enemies neither respect or fear us.  War by its nature is violent and inhuman.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 24, 2022)

"Deterrence cannot explain America's more humane conduct in recent wars. The United States has maintained this policy of comparative restraint despite the fact that none of the adversaries the United States has engaged with militarily since World War II has possessed the capacity to retaliate in kind."


----------



## AZrailwhale (Dec 25, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "Deterrence cannot explain America's more humane conduct in recent wars. The United States has maintained this policy of comparative restraint despite the fact that none of the adversaries the United States has engaged with militarily since World War II has possessed the capacity to retaliate in kind."


All of the people we have fought since the end of WWII have violated the Laws of War on a routine basis and as an official policy.


----------



## fncceo (Dec 25, 2022)

PaintMyHouse said:


> A-bomb, nuclear WMD that only America has been murderous enough to use as weapon of terror on two entirely civilian target resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands...



Japan was probably the most fanatical enemy America has ever faced.  Thousands of suicide attacks from the air, sea, and land, against American sailors and Marines.

The application of two, rather small, nuclear weapons turned Japan from a fanatical war-sotted country into a nation of democracy loving pacifists.

As weapons go, there never has been such an effective use of force since Cain killed Able with a rock.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 25, 2022)

"What can explain this apparent transformation in U.S. conduct of war and public attitudes toward the use of force? Drawing on public opinion surveys, as well as other historical material, this essay will explore three broad explanations for the change. The first explanation – the one most commonly cited by scholars of the conduct of war – claims that there has been a decisive shift in the norms surrounding the targeting of civilians. By this account, Americans' ideas about what constitutes appropriate and ethical conduct in war have changed for the better."


----------



## M14 Shooter (Dec 30, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "The most commonly articulated argument for the decline in the intentional targeting of civilian populations by the United States since 1945....


You're lying.  This hasn't happened,.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 30, 2022)

fncceo said:


> Japan was probably the most fanatical enemy America has ever faced. Thousands of suicide attacks from the air, sea, and land, against American sailors and Marines.



And not only suicide attacks, suicides.

This can be clearly seen at the Battle of Saipan, the only battlefield where a significant number of civilians of Japanese cultural descent lived.  And well over a thousand choose suicide over being taken prisoner.  Often times entire families choosing death over that.  Often entire families jumping off of the cliffs.



Now this was just a single small colony of Japan.  Now imagine if the US had to invade.

The press in Japan was actually championing those civilians that killed themselves on Saipan, and were slaughtered by their own army on Okinawa.  Prime Minister Suzuki on 9 June 1945 even calling them special victims of their "Holy War" in the defense of Japan.

Even today, Japan is really the only culture that has no large prohibition against suicide.  Aokigahara is one such location, where even today hundreds of suicides and attempts are conducted each year in just the single forest.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 30, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> All of the people we have fought since the end of WWII have violated the Laws of War on a routine basis and as an official policy.



I think Poophead has just given up.  Hell, he can not even provide references to where he is quoting from.

That is from a 2016 paper called "Moral Character or Character of War? American Public Opinion on the Targeting of Civilians in Times of War", by Benjamin Valentino and published in Daedalus.









						Moral Character or Character of War? American Public Opinion on the Targeting of Civilians in Times of War
					

Abstract. Since the end of the Vietnam War, the United States has refrained from the widespread, intentional targeting of civilian populations in times of war. Public opinion polls seem to reflect a marked decline in American support for targeting foreign civilians since that time. Drawing on...




					direct.mit.edu
				




He is not even trying to stick to the very topic anymore.  And is just randomly posting quotations and can't even cite them.  Maybe I should do the same thing.


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 30, 2022)

Mushroom said:


> And not only suicide attacks, suicides.



Poopy, I see you did yet another "dislike", and then said nothing.

So tell me, how am I wrong?  Did not well over a thousand civilians kill themselves at Saipan?  Deciding it was better to die than be taken by the Americans?  Did over 4,000 Japanese soldiers not conduct the most famous "Banzai Charge" of the war there, with even those wounded in previous engagements charging unarmed just so they could die gloriously in battle and avoid surrender?

Is not the Aokigahara Forest the most well known place in Japan for people to go in order to commit suicide?  With hundreds of them carried out there every year?  Or that in the religion there, there is actually no prohibition against suicide at all?


You see, this is why you are not taken seriously.  You bloviate endlessly about nonsense, and actually trying to deny things just because you do not like them.  And the more you do things like that, the more I actually believe your only real understanding of Japan is coprolitic fetishes.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 30, 2022)

The Okinawa Problem: The Forgotten History of Japanese Colonialism and Ryukyuan Indigeneity
					

While most observers view the “Okinawa Problem” as one of U.S. military bases, it actually involves the colonial history of the Ryukyu islands and the violation of the Okinawans’ rights as an indigenous people. On June 16, Okinawans gathered in a 65,000 strong protest rally demanding the...




					www.risingpowersinitiative.org


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 30, 2022)

Suicides in Japan Decrease Slightly in 2021
					

Suicides in Japan fell 0.4% in 2021 from the previous year, but the rate for women rose for the second year running and remained high for youth.




					www.nippon.com


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 30, 2022)

https://www.army.mil/article/92856/the_story_of_the_nuts_reply


----------



## Mushroom (Dec 31, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> The Okinawa Problem: The Forgotten History of Japanese Colonialism and Ryukyuan Indigeneity
> 
> 
> While most observers view the “Okinawa Problem” as one of U.S. military bases, it actually involves the colonial history of the Ryukyu islands and the violation of the Okinawans’ rights as an indigenous people. On June 16, Okinawans gathered in a 65,000 strong protest rally demanding the...
> ...



Wow, thank you for confirming that suicide is a growing problem in Japan.

Now excuse me as I am still laughing my ass off, as you just thoughtlessly vomited up some random clip and did not analysis or actual thinking yourself when you did so.  But here, for those that do have a brain and actually read data, this is quite telling.



> The number of suicides in Japan in 2021 totaled 21,007, a decrease of 74 (0.4%) compared with 2020.



Wow, a huge decrease, 0.4%!  That is what, a decrease of 4 in 1,000?  Honestly, I do not even think I could take that amount seriously, it seems more like the expected annual deviation as opposed to anything that was actually done to solve the problem.

But then you have the very next line.



> The number of suicides per 100,000 people rose by 0.1 to 16.8.



So in other words, it actually went up slightly.  As a percentage it went down, in per 100k of population it actually increased.  With suicides among the young (20 and under) and elderly (over 50) showing sharp increases.

So you see Poopy, there is much more involved than just vomiting up something that you think shows you are right, you need to actually analyze the information.  You simply glommed onto the completely insignificant statistic about 0.4%, and apparently put zero thought into actually considering what that meant.  In looking at the data, the suicide rate is still on the rise, and even more disturbingly the rate for those under 20 is increasing again.  Which that article rather cleverly attempted to hide.



> The year also saw the second highest number of cases of school students, after 2020, with 473 taking their own lives.



OK, now that sentence is a real wonder, since it was written to cover the 2021 year.  But think on it, second highest since 2020, and that literally covers two years.  I wonder how many even realize that the "second highest" is one of only two years in the time period they themselves laid out?  That is the difference between actually analyzing data, and just vomiting it up and thinking it means something.

So once again, thank you for proving I am right, Poopy.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 31, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> Suicides in Japan Decrease Slightly in 2021
> 
> 
> Suicides in Japan fell 0.4% in 2021 from the previous year, but the rate for women rose for the second year running and remained high for youth.
> ...


.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 31, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> The Okinawa Problem: The Forgotten History of Japanese Colonialism and Ryukyuan Indigeneity
> 
> 
> While most observers view the “Okinawa Problem” as one of U.S. military bases, it actually involves the colonial history of the Ryukyu islands and the violation of the Okinawans’ rights as an indigenous people. On June 16, Okinawans gathered in a 65,000 strong protest rally demanding the...
> ...


.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 31, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "What can explain this apparent transformation in U.S. conduct of war and public attitudes toward the use of force? Drawing on public opinion surveys, as well as other historical material, this essay will explore three broad explanations for the change. The first explanation – the one most commonly cited by scholars of the conduct of war – claims that there has been a decisive shift in the norms surrounding the targeting of civilians. By this account, Americans' ideas about what constitutes appropriate and ethical conduct in war have changed for the better."


.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 31, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> https://www.army.mil/article/92856/the_story_of_the_nuts_reply


.


----------



## Unkotare (Dec 31, 2022)

Unkotare said:


> "What can explain this apparent transformation in U.S. conduct of war and public attitudes toward the use of force? Drawing on public opinion surveys, as well as other historical material, this essay will explore three broad explanations for the change. The first explanation – the one most commonly cited by scholars of the conduct of war – claims that there has been a decisive shift in the norms surrounding the targeting of civilians. By this account, Americans' ideas about what constitutes appropriate and ethical conduct in war have changed for the better."


.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jan 1, 2023)

Look the retard doesnt even read the replies before wasting our time with more cut and paste.


----------



## Unkotare (Jan 1, 2023)

Unkotare said:


> Wrong again.


.


----------



## Mushroom (Jan 1, 2023)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Look the retard doesnt even read the replies before wasting our time with more cut and paste.



Or quoting himself uselessly.


----------

