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

[Flash]

The thing these stupid uneducated Jap apologists always seem to forget is that for all the scenarios for ending the war with unconditional surrender the nuking probably produced the fewest number of Jap casualties not including allied casualties.

 

[Unkotare]

The thing these stupid uneducated apologists always seem to forget is that for all the scenarios for ending the war with unconditional surrender the nuking probably produced the fewest number of casualties not including allied casualties.

Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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."

 

[Mac-7]

The kid is complete idiot.

He’s got Yellow Fevor

Unkotare got the admiral’s title wrong, but I accept that he was a high muckity muck in the Pentagon

even higher than most other flag officers of which they were as common as cockroaches by 1945

and from that high number a few disagree with dropping the bomb

big deal

 

[Unkotare]

.... I accept that he was a high muckity muck in the Pentagon
....

How big of you to recognize reality for once.


Still haven't seen a moral justification for dropping atomic bombs on civilians that doesn't rely on assumption and speculation. The mere consideration that the choice to use the bomb was unnecessary and/or immoral sends the simple minded into emotive hysteria. Children don't take well to questioning comfortable narratives that they need to make their world palatable.

 

[Mac-7]

Still haven't seen a moral justification for dropping atomic bombs on civilians that doesn't rely on assumption and speculation.

You speculate that japan would have surrendered without an invasion which is the real leap of faith

 

[Unkotare]

You speculate that Japan would have surrendered without an invasion which the real leap of faith

Since there were verified attempts at offering terms of surrender (per significant evidence posted here many times), it is not such a great leap.

 

[Mac-7]

Since there were verified attempts at offering terms of surrender (per significant evidence posted here many times), it is not such a great leap.

That been exposed as a half truth many times by others here

the japanese were never committed to surrender with disarmament and occupation

 

[Unkotare]

That been exposed as a half truth many times by others here
....

So you insist despite all the evidence to the contrary. Your position depends entirely on denying even the slightest possibility that it may have been so. Even the slightest possibility.

 

[Mac-7]

So you insist despite all the evidence to the contrary.

There is no evidence other that the opinions of a few officers

 

[DudleySmith]

He’s got Yellow Fevor

Unkotare got the admiral’s title wrong, but I accept that he was a high muckity muck in the Pentagon

even higher than most other flag officers of which they were as common as cockroaches by 1945

and from that high number a few disagree with dropping the bomb

big deal

At the time they didn't really know what the nukes were or what their effects would be. We do know they pretty much single-handedly shut down 'total war' tactics in favor of relatively low intensity proxy conflicts from then on, and we should all be very grateful for that, since the lives saved globally are far far greater than the million or so lives of servicemen of our own.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no evidence other that the opinions of a few officers

That is not true, as has been demonstrated here many times.

 

[Flash]

Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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."

Then why didn't the fuckers surrender?

Hell the bastards continued to fight even during the interlude between the two bombings.

You are not too bight, are you?

Maybe since you did not have the courage to ever serve in the military you don't understand things like this.

 

[Unkotare]

There is no evidence other that the opinions of a few officers

"Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."

Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."

Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."

 

[Unkotare]

.....

Maybe since you did not have the courage to ever serve in the military you don't understand things like this.

That logical fallacy hasn't and isn't going to work for you, grandma.

 

[Mac-7]

That is not true, as has been demonstrated here many times.

You demonstrated nothing except to drop the opinions of a few officers

 

[Mac-7]

"Responding to a journalist's question in 1995 about what he would have done had he been in Truman's shoes, Joseph O'Donnell, a retired marine corps sergeant who served in the Pacific, answered that "we should have went after the military in Japan. They were bad. But to drop a bomb on women and children and the elderly, I draw a line there, and I still hold it."

Doug Dowd, a Pacific-theater rescue pilot who was slated to take an early part in the invasion of Japan if it had come to that, recently stated that it was clear in the final months of the war that the Japanese "had lost the ability to defend themselves." American planes "met little, and then virtually no resistance," Dowd recalled. He added, "It is well-known [now] that the Japanese were seeking to make a peace agreement well before Hiroshima."

Or take Ed Everts, a major in the 7th weather squadron of the Army Air Corps. Everts, who received an air medal for surviving a crash at sea during the battle at Iwo Jima, told us that America's use of atomic bombs was "a war crime" for which "our leaders should have been put on trial as were the German and Japanese leaders."

Thats 3 enlisted men to go along with a few officers

they are entitled to their opinion

but far more know the atomic bomb saved lives and prevented post war japan from being a divided country

 

[Mushroom]

not occupying Germany and demonstrating without a doubt they lost the war

They did not lose the war. WWI ended in an armistice, not a surrender.

Which is why all the Allies agreed that this time around all of the Axis powers had to surrender, and they would not accept an armistice.

 

[Unkotare]

Thats 3 enlisted men to go along with a few officers
....

How many do you need? 1000? 100,000? More? How about instead of losing the argument on mathematical grounds you try defending your position on moral grounds that do NOT rely on assumptions that are in dispute to say the least?

 

[Mushroom]

Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war.

And was the Admiral a member of the Big Six? Did he have any input as to the actual surrender in the Japanese government?

No? Then his opinion matters about as much as a bowl of dog snot.

 

[Mushroom]

You speculate that japan would have surrendered without an invasion which is the real leap of faith

Well, since the day before the first bomb they voted 6-0 to continue the war no matter what, and by the time of the second bomb that had changed to a staggering 5-1 to continue the war no matter what, and even after two bombs the most they could do was deadlock, I think it's safe to say that even after two bombs, they only barely surrendered.

Because as sure as yen for yeast, if the Emperor voted for them to continue fighting, they would have done exactly that.