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

[Unkotare]

.....

Any civilians that were killed were collateral damage. They were not the target.

You should have more self respect than to post such a ridiculous lie.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Incorrect.

Then LINK to a credible source that lists where the BIG 6 offered surrender BEFORE the Atomic Bombs were dropped.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Apparently, you don't read very carefully.

YOU nor anyone else has LINKED to any such surrender offer by the GOVERNMENT of Japan.

 

[Open Bolt]

Of course YOU know better than our country's leading military commanders of the day. Of course.

Well, yes. I do. But my agreement that they are delusional was not really a challenge to their claim that Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bombs.

I agreed that they are delusional because I just think that their endless whining about it is pretty ridiculous.

If Japan would have surrendered without the use of the atomic bombs, then it was Japan's mistake for not having done so.

Japan was given plenty of opportunity to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.

Japan was the one who decided to wait until August 10 to surrender.

If Japan had been ready to surrender before that, then waiting until August 10 to surrender was a massive screw up on Japan's part.

The war was going to continue until that POS fdr (finally through his stooge truman) got a chance to use his new toy on hundreds of thousands of civilians. That scumbag would never have settled for less.

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

FDR and Truman had no control over when Japan surrendered.

It was Japan that decided when they were going to surrender.

It was Japan that decided to wait until August 10 to surrender.

It is a good thing that Japan waited so long though. The human race would be extinct today if the US and USSR had not had the example of Hiroshima to restrain them from nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Apparently, you don't read very carefully.

I read just fine. Japan did not make any offer to surrender until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

Willfully ignorant of history.

The fact that I knew that Hiroshima was the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion is the opposite of ignorance.

You should have more self respect than to post such a ridiculous lie.

The truth is not a lie. Hiroshima was bombed because it was a large military center with tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers and held the military headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.

The second atomic bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100 feet by 2000 feet) factory complex that made Japan's light and heavy machine guns and 20mm antiaircraft guns, as well as all the ammo for those weapons. Unfortunately it was diverted to the secondary target, the Mitsubishi shipyards, which made some of Japan's largest warships, and was then diverted even further. But the second atomic bomb still managed to smash the factory that made the specialized torpedoes for defeating Pearl Harbor's defenses.

 

[Open Bolt]

The initial plans were for military targets, however, as bombing in those days was strictly by sight only, and the weather wasn't cooperating, they had alternate designated targets if they couldn't hit the military ones. The only thing I agree with, is that the US should have waited a bit longer to see if the Japanese would surrender. Some of the Japanese generals wanted to keep fighting to the end, which would have cost thousands more American lives, had they not surrendered.

Why pause between blows and give the enemy a chance to recover??

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets. Hiroshima was a huge military center with tens of thousands of soldiers and held the headquarters in charge of repelling our invasion.

Nagasaki had the factory that made the specialized torpedoes designed to defeat Pearl Harbor's natural defenses.

 

[Open Bolt]

Nuking Japan was poorly thought out

Not at all. They did a good job of planning the missions.

and not really "necessary"

When we are at war with someone, we attack them. That's how it works.

as if incinerating mere citizens ever could be

The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

Many other ways to have handled the situation existed.

The way we handle going to war with someone is by attacking them.

One would have been to just go to the source of the problems and bomb Moscow, for example, if it were well and truly the intention to demonstrate power and determination.

Aside from the difficulty of reaching Moscow, there was the fact that it was Japan that we were at war with, not the Soviet Union.

 

[Open Bolt]

It’s ironic that Dirty Harry Truman, may he be burning in Hell for eternity, mass murdered all those defenseless Japanese women and children to impress Uncle Joe...when we know that Uncle Joe knew all about the bomb, before Dirty Harry knew.

Attacks on military targets are not murder. The reason for the attacks was to make Japan surrender.

So, Dirty Harry’s war crime was committed to impress Uncle Joe, but didn’t.

Wartime attacks on military targets are not a war crime. For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.

The reason for the attacks was to make Japan surrender.

Do you really think this justifies the bombings?

What justifies the bombings is the mere fact that Japan was refusing to surrender.

Has it ever occurred to you statists that we didn’t need to occupy Japan?

We would have had to if they had kept refusing to surrender.

Accept their surrender and go home.

Japan was refusing to surrender.

Before Truman’s war crime,

Wartime attacks on military targets are not war crimes.

For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japan was a destroyed nation with no military. It posed no threat to us or anyone else.

They still had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.

The Japs did it to themselves.
They did it on Okinawa. By that time it was pretty much certain that the Allies were going to prevail however, the stupid Japs fought to almost the last man inflicting heavy ground losses on the Americans including Kamikaze attacks.
The Americans rightfully said "fuck this shit, lets nuke the bastards".
The Japs should have withdrew from Okinawa and attempted to negotiate a conditional surrender.
Japanese hard headiness is what caused those cities to be nuked.

Revisionist history. Dumb too.

Not at all. All of his facts are accurate.

The lesson should be never invade another country, but this is lost on statists.
You think a nation invaded by the Empire, shouldn’t fight. If the Empire was invaded, would you fight?

Sorry, but when someone goes around murdering Americans, they can expect to have to surrender to America's military.

If Japan didn't want us to invade them, then they shouldn't have been attacking us in the first place.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Attacks on military targets are not murder. The reason for the attacks was to make Japan surrender.



Wartime attacks on military targets are not a war crime. For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.

The reason for the attacks was to make Japan surrender.



What justifies the bombings is the mere fact that Japan was refusing to surrender.



We would have had to if they had kept refusing to surrender.



Japan was refusing to surrender.



Wartime attacks on military targets are not war crimes.

For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.



They still had two million soldiers and ten thousand kamikazes waiting to pounce on our invading forces.



Not at all. All of his facts are accurate.



Sorry, but when someone goes around murdering Americans, they can expect to have to surrender to America's military.

If Japan didn't want us to invade them, then they shouldn't have been attacking us in the first place.

They are so cowardly they ignore my requests for proof of their ignorant claims. Poop boy has NEVER once posted a link to support any of his claims he has posted a link to a newspaper article from the 60's that makes the same spurious claims he does but the article has no listed sources either.

 

[Unkotare]

You’re late to an argument that has already been lost.

Read the thread over and over if you want.

 

[Open Bolt]

You’re late to an argument that has already been lost.

That is incorrect. Your denials of history do not win arguments.

Read the thread over and over if you want.

Once will be enough.

 

[Open Bolt]

They are so cowardly they ignore my requests for proof of their ignorant claims.

No proof exists on account of their claims not being true to begin with. The critics of the atomic bombings are simply denying history.

 

[Concerned American]

Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima

There was no strategic reason for dropping either bomb. The US had the opportunity to test the bomb under real world circumstances and determine the long term effects on humans. Nagasaki was just a continuation of the test. The bombs used were of different configurations. "Fat Boy" and "Little Man" One bomb was bulbular while the other was long and narrow. I would be interested in knowing which one was more effective if anyone has any research that has been made public. The world knew that Japanese were defeated and the Diet was in session considering terms of surrender when the first bomb was dropped.

 

[Concerned American]

Bottom line. It was a weapon that needed to be tested and demonstrated. Second guessing 75 years later is useless. War is hell. If you don't want the atrocities of war--quit fighting.

 

[Concerned American]

Wartime attacks on military targets are not war crimes.

For an example of a war crime, look to the peacetime attack on Pearl Harbor.

Hiroshima was not a military target. Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge." Pearl Harbor was a military base. However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible. Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hiroshima was not a military target. Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge." Pearl Harbor was a military base. However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible. Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.

Simply NOT TRUE. The headquarters for defense of the Island was there. Further it had a manufacturing source,

 

[Mac-7]

Hiroshima was not a military target. Ground zero was 60' above Hiroshima city hall, "The T bridge." Pearl Harbor was a military base. However, Pearl Harbor WAS a peace time sneak attack and was reprehensible. Bombing a civilian population center with an atomic bomb was also reprehensible--War is hell.

The atomic bomb ended japanese resistance and saved both American and japanese lives

 

[Concerned American]

Simply NOT TRUE. The headquarters for defense of the Island was there. Further it had a manufacturing source,

By that logic, Seattle and SF and San Diego are fair targets, eh?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By that logic, Seattle and SF and San Diego are fair targets, eh?

As ports yes they are,

 

[Concerned American]

saved both American and japanese lives

That is about as convoluted as you can get. We'll save your life by killing you. LMAO, do you think before you post? Reminds me of what we said about an old recruiting ad--Join the Navy, see the world, meet new people----and kill them.

 

[Concerned American]

As ports yes they are,

So Hiroshima city hall (the target) is a port now?