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

[Unkotare]

I accept the word of the men who were there at the time

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...

origins.osu.edu

 

[9thIDdoc]

Again, i am not suggesting anyone broke a treaty. I am saying that, in a discussion of the morality and ethics of the bombs, there is no real place for a stupid declaration of moral equivalence with bayonets. That's all.

What is more stupid than thinking bombs or bayonets have morals or ethics? They are not intelligent beings and cannot consider such things. If in fact there are moral or ethical considerations in the use of weapons they are entirely concerned with the use of weapons to kill maim or destroy and there is no reason to believe that some weapons are more ethical than others. Yes, some treaties have attempted to limit the weapons used as well as other acts of war and I am well aware that you are using this fact to beg the question concerning ethics. But Nations make treaties with other Nations when they think it is in their best interest to do so. Such treaties apply (to the extent they actually do) only to those Nations that sign the treaties. And it is far from unknown for Nations to form treaties that are only made to deceive other Nations. Treaties are easily broken. You have yet to provide support that any treaty makes a statement about the ethics of a weapon. "Strategic Arms Limitations" are concerned with International strategy; not ethics.

 

[Mac-7]

Hiroshima: Military Voices of Dissent | Origins

Almost six decades after the fact, the 1945 unleashing of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima continues to be the subject of impassioned debate. Every year the bombing anniversary — which falls on August 6 — occasions heated exchanges between those who question the atomic bombing and those who...

origins.osu.edu

There are always dissenting opinions on anything

speaking of Halsey he truly was a bull

but for every military leader with a dissenting opinion there are many more who support the decision

 

[Unkotare]

There are always dissenting opinions on anything

speaking of Halsey he truly was a bull

but for every military leader with a dissenting opinion there are many more who support the decision

I presented you with several prominent names. Where's your list?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is more stupid than thinking bombs or bayonets have morals or ethics?

A desperate, stupid response. The discussion of morals and ethics is about using them. Just give it up. Ya said something dumb. Moving on...

 

[Mac-7]

presented you with several prominent names. Where's your list?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ge orge C Marshsll, Douglas MacArthur, Winston Churchill

estimates were as high as 1 million US wounded and 380,000 killed

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Unkotare]

The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ge orge C Marshsll, Douglas MacArthur, Winston Churchill

estimates were as high as 1 million US wounded and 380,000 killed

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Wikipedia? but you’re the‘scholar’ who “really understands” things.

 

[Mac-7]

Wikipedia? but you’re the‘scholar’ who “really understands” things.

Do you disagree with Marshall and MacArthur?

the bomb saved 380,000 American lives

 

[Ben Thomson]

Do you realize how little sense that makes?

He doesn't...just spouting BS.

 

[Unkotare]

Do you disagree with Marshall and MacArthur?

the bomb saved 380,000 American lives

MacArthur? This MacArthur?

"General Dwight Eisenhower voiced his opposition at Potsdam. "The Japanese were already defeated," he told Secretary of War Henry Stimson, "and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Admiral William Leahy, President Harry Truman's chief of staff, said that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor. Similar views were voiced by Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey, and General Henry Arnold."

"Retention of the emperor, as MacArthur noted, was the main stumbling block to surrender. Truman was well aware of the situation. He referred to the intercepted July 18 cable as the "telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace." His close advisors concurred. "

"As postwar U.S. intelligence reports made clear, the atomic bombs had little impact on the Japanese decision. "

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-27/its-time-to-confront-painful-truths-about-using-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan

 

[Ben Thomson]

By the time we decided to use nukes Japan was done. Their naval and air power was decimated and no longer any real threat. We had a new 'toy' and were determined to see how it worked...civilians be damned.

 

[Mac-7]

MacArthur? This MacArthur?

"General Dwight Eisenhower voiced his opposition at Potsdam. "The Japanese were already defeated," he told Secretary of War Henry Stimson, "and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." Admiral William Leahy, President Harry Truman's chief of staff, said that the "Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender….The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan." General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor. Similar views were voiced by Admirals Chester Nimitz, Ernest King and William Halsey, and General Henry Arnold."

"Retention of the emperor, as MacArthur noted, was the main stumbling block to surrender. Truman was well aware of the situation. He referred to the intercepted July 18 cable as the "telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace." His close advisors concurred. "

"As postwar U.S. intelligence reports made clear, the atomic bombs had little impact on the Japanese decision. "

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-27/its-time-to-confront-painful-truths-about-using-the-atomic-bombs-on-japan

The japanese were not surrendering

they wanted a ceasefire followed by a negotiated settlement

 

[Unkotare]

The japanese were not surrendering
...

America's top military leaders disagreed with that comfortable little narrative.

 

[Mac-7]

top military leaders disagreed with that comfortable little narrative.

If you think only in military terms the war could have ended without using atomic bombs

we would have invaded the mainland, 300,000 plus Americans would die, and possibly the Red Army would have landed on Japanese soil

That is a much worse choice

 

[RetiredGySgt]

America's top military leaders disagreed with that comfortable little narrative.

And yet you can not link to a single source that agrees with you that has a source linked to it.

 

[Unkotare]

If you think only in military terms the war could have ended without using atomic bombs

we would have invaded the mainland, 300,000 plus Americans would die, and possibly the Red Army would have landed on Japanese soil

That is a much worse choice

Invasion was not the only other option. America's top military leaders recognized that the decision to use that terrible weapon was a political one, not a military necessity. It was widely understood on both sides that Japan was defeated for all intents and purposes. America's military leaders also saw that Japan was looking for a way to surrender and end the war. Over 75 years later, simpletons like you react like petulant children when confronted with a reality more complex than the comfortable narrative that has let you sleep at night all your life.

 

[Unkotare]

So many of these little boys who think they understand "Bushido" because they read a few comic books or watched a few cartoons seem to think that in the time when that philosophy really was followed - by only a very select segment of society - that fighters (and civilians apparently) never surrendered in any war or any battle. Everyone on the losing side killed themselves? Every farmer, merchant, or peasant? Only dimwitted children and/or those completely ignorant of Japanese history believe such nonsense. Bushido did not mean a complete disregard for life, or a love of death. It meant much more, but - uh oh, here it comes - "you just don't understand." By the 1930s and 40s not only had the social class associated with the philosophy long since passed, but the idea of Bushido was a mere tool in state propaganda, not something intended to be used by foolish apologist foreigners some 75 years later.

"But what about Okinawa?" you may say. Here's another "oh, you just don't understand!" moment. For all the "you're uneducated!" and "if only you understood as I do!" bullshit, I have yet to hear anyone recognize how the residents of Okinawa (to say nothing of even more outlying areas) were viewed by most people (and especially those in positions of influence) on Honshu and in the government. Are you familiar with the notion of "cannon fodder" in the western tradition? Why not turn up the propaganda on those in outlying areas and scare the bejeesus out of them about an inhuman enemy (ever see any propaganda posters produced by our own government in WWI/WWII about Germans and Japanese - even American citizens who happened to be of Japanese descent?) if it would serve the purpose of convincing the enemy that it would be too costly to try and take the real homeland? Just importing a few examples from the actual American media of the time would be enough to convince people with very little contact with the outside world prior to the war, that Americans were so full of hate and violence that death might be easier. Do you think any Americans at the time thought they would have been treated nicely if the tables were turned? How much easier did it make the work of propagandists to read story after story in American newspapers, replete with racial slurs, about American servicemen sending home the ears, and noses, and skulls of Japanese prisoners and war dead to their sweethearts back home?

But no, you who know so much more, never thought about any of that. So much easier and more comfortable to just snuggle up with a comfy narrative you never bothered to really think about. Just screaming "Yeh! Fuk 'em! Fuk yeah!" while you crush a Bud Lite on your empty forehead feels so much better than actually thinking.

 

[Mushroom]

General Douglas MacArthur said that the Japanese would have gladly surrendered as early as May if the U.S. had told them they could keep the emperor.

Which is not true.

You keep saying this over and over again, but the list of demands that Japan was trying to propose even into late July was nothing like that.

They wanted no occupation. No war crime trials. No reparations. That all Allied powers leave all territory that Japan had occupied before the war started. That most Allied powers demilitarize territories they occupied before the war started.

And finally, that the Philippines be completely demilitarized, and that it be joint occupied by the US and Japan.

Those were their demands in July 1945. And it was only after the bombs did the "Emperor" remain became an issue. They were still trying to behave like they were the victors, and could dictate the terms. Which was stupid, as they had already witnessed the Allied Powers fighting all the way to Berlin and knocking on the door of Der Paper Hangar's house as he decided to eat a Walther sandwich.

The very fact that they outright refused to even discuss the Potsdam Declaration and even try to negotiate it shows they had absolutely no interest at all in "surrender". They wanted an Armistice, and a pro quo ante bellum, and would not even consider anything else. Only after 2 atomic bombs did they suddenly realize that they had no choice.

And even then, half of the Imperial Council was still demanding that the war continue no matter what. Even if the entire nation was burned to ash and everybody was dead. And even after the Emperor made the final call (the first time ever), there were coup attempts to try and prevent the surrender and keep the war going.

 

[Mushroom]

I have yet to hear anyone recognize how the residents of Okinawa (to say nothing of even more outlying areas) were viewed by most people (and especially those in positions of influence) on Honshu and in the government.

Trust me, I do know.

In fact, most of the deaths of civilians on Okinawa was at the hands of the Japanese military themselves. They did not have the almost insane drive to self-destruction and suicide as those on the mainland did. Hence, the Japanese soldiers "helping them" make the right choice.

However, those on islands like Saipan were almost all settlers who came from the mainland themselves, so shared the same beliefs. Hence, the mass suicides (which did not happen on Okinawa - because Okinawan culture is vastly different than that of mainland Japan).

And even today, to most on the mainland (especially popular culture), those on Okinawa are largely seen as the "backwards rural cousins". Not unlike say Gomer Pile in most of the US. Quiet, somewhat backwards and maybe stupid cousins in the backwater. I know more than a few that told me they actually resented the "popular opinion" of them in the popular Japanese media. That it was insulting, and offensive.

Like some in the US, who see all that live on Hawaii as slightly stupid, screw at the drop of a hat, and want to do nothing but surf, frolic on the beach, and eat pineapple and spam.

 

[Unkotare]

Hiroshima: Quotes

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

www.doug-long.com