The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[Unkotare]

... it saved millions of lives by doing so. ...

Speculation. You swallowed a simple narrative and you are unwilling to give up your security blanket.

 

[Unkotare]

...it got rid of their cult leader as their actual leader ....

Once again demonstrating your ignorance of culture and history.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

...--------you think .......

Don't try to tell me what I think, douche bag. If you have a question, ask.

We have asked a question, you refuse to answer , what other option was there? Answer the question.

 

[Turtlesoup]

...No one cares when Truman was told about the A bombs before he became president---....

You care, because it blows a giant hole in your failed argument.

I care? It blows a hole in my argument? It does nothing ukotare. You are completely delusional and trying I think to muddy up the argument with nonsense in some weird attempt to pretend your delusions.

What Truman knew of the a bomb before he became president has nothing to do with anything anywhere for any reason. It only mattered that he knew about them as soon as he was sworn in April of 45 and that he immediately used them to leverage both Japan and Russia to do his bidding which was to end the WW2 unconditionally and forever. Dropping the bombs, despite your delusional nonsense, was the most moral and ethical thing that could be done---it ended the war, it saved millions of lives. It saved our troops including my grandfather and his brothers. It prevented Japan from becoming another fat kim Korea.......

 

[Englewood]

Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

...--------you think .......

Don't try to tell me what I think, douche bag. If you have a question, ask.

We have asked a question, you refuse to answer , what other option was there? Answer the question.

LA Ram you can disagree all you want but refusing to answer the question is a FACT.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You found one link to one document that you cannot understand in context. You have been provided with dozens and dozens of links to information informing your ignorant ass about the reality of the time, but you have ignored all of them because you stopped thinking long ago.

Wrong all you have EVER linked to is books by revisionist historians with OUT a single source document. I linked to actual SOURCE documents that clearly show that Japan NEVER offered to surrender. NEVER, Read it again NEVER. All the offered was a cease fire and return to 41 start lines and concessions in China. All you have are opiniona, I have actual SOURCE documents with the actual words detailing what was offered and what was NOT.

I understand you are well into your dotage, but you are just acting like senior citizen rain man with your repetition and ignoring piles of evidence. Go have some Jell-O.

Again reject SOURCE Documents, the ACTUAL offers demands and requests verbatim. What do you have? Opinions by revisionists that have no actual evidence to back their claims.

Are you a very good driver?

Again for the slow, my source has the ACTUAL Offers, the actual discussions the official word from the Japanese Government on all occasions. What have you got? Opinions from people that were not even alive at the time.

One. You found one document the translation of which you haven’t a prayer of checking personally and which you misunderstood in context and you haven’t stopped rain manning it ever since. Meanwhile, you have assiduously ignored mountains of historical evidence because you stopped thinking long ago.

You have NOT provided any historical evidence just claims by historians that golly gee the Japanese were gonna surrender HONEST gee whiz. The ACTUAL Documents transmitted from the Japanese Government which I cited and linked to CLEARLY show that all Japan Offered was a ceasefire, return to 41 start lines and NO concessions in China. I am not providing feel good revisionist history I am citing ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS from OUR Government.

I forgot I had commented here. Anyway, let's pretend for just a moment that they really didn't surrender, that the Japanese Government had no intention of ever surrendering in any way, shape, or form, just for the sake of the argument.

So, how many of the thousands of people incinerated by the two nukes were responsible for that decision, for taking "American" lives, or for anything involving that war besides being tax cattle? What's that, none? They were all or mostly civilians? Gosh, that sounds pretty messed up, it's like the Government just felt like committing mass murder.

Look you clueless idiot in WW2 it was total war all sides bombed all sides. As for never surrendering we were set to invade the main Islands in November with projections of a million casualties on just ONE island. Based on the actions in Saipan and Okinawa MILLIONS of civilians would have died by suicide or mass wave assaulting the beach heads as instructed by their Government. Those bombs actually saved Japanese lives.

You don't get to judge the actions of WW2 using today's morals and values, they were not in existence in 1945.

Look, you boot-licking Government cultist; "Total War" doesn't justify outright murdering people completely unrelated to said war. Ethics are objective, murder is murder, and it's not excused just because the Government whose boots you lick is the one doing it. Because a Government kills tons of people doesn't mean it's totally cool to murder tax cattle who had jack-shit to do with it.

No, murdering random-ass civilians didn't save anyone, it murdered thousands. Even if we pretend you're not parroting politician talking points, and you are, that's Consequantialism, which is really just used to justify the most heinous acts mankind has ever committed, it can be used as an excuse for anything.

Yes, I can use "today's morals and values" to judge actions of WW2, ethics are objective and never change. What makes an action wrong is the action itself, not WHEN it was committed, that's freaking retarded. If I went back in time and shot someone in the face, it wouldn't matter what time I traveled to, that would still be screwed up. Likewise, mass murder is inherently unethical.

On the upside, I don't have to ask what your religion is, your holy deity of choice is your beloved holy Government, who can do no wrong in your eyes.

You IGNORANT ASS, be specific now and cite with links the riots, the movements or attempts to stop allied Countries from mass bombings by the population of said Country in WW2.

Again you can disagree LaA Ram but failure to provide an answer is in fact an answer.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

...the importance of such words as Shinto, Bushido, Yamato, and what they said about the early Shows [sic] period.

People who read a book jacket and think they have become experts...

People who reference cartoons as "proof" of some half-assed, superficial "analysis" of culture or history...

People who can't be bothered to correctly spell the terms they are trying to use. How about "Showa," professor?

Again you have posted NO LINK to actual documents from either Mac Arthur or the Japanese Government. You cite Historians that make the claim and no where in their books is a shred of evidence to support the claim. Yes there was a peace group in the Government but it was out voted and had no authority to act. EVERY single communique to their Embassy said the same thing, ask for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines no occupation no surrender no concessions in China. Even after the Atomic Bomb they REFUSED to surrender. And when the Emperor did surrender the Army staged a COUP to stop it.

And LA Ram AGAIN you can not cite a single source a single link to an actual Government offer by the Official Japanese Government. You can funny it all you want but the fact is Japan never offered to surrender EVER.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Japanese were seeking peace negotiations from Potsdam onward.

Common misbelief, but wrong.

It's not a "misbelief". It's called propaganda. The left lives for it and Joey loves to spread it. Even he doesn't believe it.

Uh, Poodle, try to pick up a history book. Shit, I'll make it easier for you.. here's something from Faux News.

Historians: Soviet offensive, key to Japan's WWII surrender, was eclipsed by A-bombs

or possibly more than — the A-bombs in ending the war.

www.foxnews.com

"The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation," said Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, whose recently published "Racing the Enemy" examines the conclusion of the Pacific war and is based on recently declassified Soviet archives as well as U.S. and Japanese documents..

"The emperor and the peace party (within the government) hastened to end the war expecting that the Americans would deal with Japan more generously than the Soviets," Hasegawa, a Russian-speaking American scholar, said in an interview.

Despite the death toll from the atomic bombings — 140,000 in Hiroshima, 80,000 in Nagasaki the Imperial Military Command believed it could hold out against an Allied invasion if it retained control of Manchuria and Korea, which provided Japan with the resources for war, according to Hasegawa and Terry Charman, a historian of World War II at London's Imperial War Museum.

"The Soviet attack changed all that," Charman said. "The leadership in Tokyo realized they had no hope now, and in that sense August Storm did have a greater effect on the Japanese decision to surrender than the dropping of the A-bombs."

Except the war party voted NOT to surrender and when the Emperor took it out of their hands they staged a failed Coup to try and stop THAT. Your historian is full of wishful thinking the FACTS as demonstrated by linked documents PROVE the majority of the Government was OPPOSED to surrender after 2 atomic bombs AND the Soviet Invasion.

Historical FACT LA RAM not a revisionist history not a fabrication, we have the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents that prove it. What do you have agaim?

 

[Turtlesoup]

...No one cares when Truman was told about the A bombs before he became president---....

You care, because it blows a giant hole in your failed argument.

You are absolutely Delusional..........and Babbling

 

[Turtlesoup]

...it got rid of their cult leader as their actual leader ....

Once again demonstrating your ignorance of culture and history.

It took their emperor out as the head of their government putting him on a leash----------after that point, he no longer was the absolute ruler---he became more of a figurehead and naught more as the Japanese people stop seeing him as a gawd as well......

 

[Unkotare]

Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?

Over and over and over. That speculation about one of several possible options has been mentioned very often.

 

[Unkotare]

...----------after that point, he no longer was the absolute ruler---he became more of a figurehead and naught more as the Japanese people stop seeing him as a gawd as well......

You have never studied anything about Japanese history, have you?

 

[Englewood]

Five star generals and even one star generals might view war differently than a draftee, PFC infantry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Has anyone cited the estimated American casualties that were forecast for the invasion of Japan?

Over and over and over. That speculation about one of several possible options has been mentioned very often.

And YOU still have not listed any supposed alternative to the bombs or an Invasion. You have not sourced nor linked to ANY official offer before the actual surrender to do so from the Japanese Government, you have not provided a source nor link to any of the supposed offers made to Mac Arthur.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.

Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.

It was effective. It's only what matters. Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

 

[gipper]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.

Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.

It was effective. It's only what matters. Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.

Illogical and totally without basis in fact. Proven wrong multiple times just in this thread. Please learn the truth and stop believing propaganda.

 

[Unkotare]

... Much more "defenseless women and children" were saved.

That is the soothing narrative that so many refuse to even consider in a critical manner. Anything to avoid a frank examination of moral implications.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

And now we have to be ready to do what could be necessary. For example, to nuke China and kill many millions of personally innocent and almost defenseless women and children.

Not so simple when other nations have nuclear weapons as well.