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

[Unkotare]

The conditions offered ended up being the same ones we accepted after fdr got his wish in hell.

No they were not all the Japanese offered was a cease fire return to 41 start lines NO concessions in China no disarming and no occupation. Even after an atomic Bomb they demanded that the Emperor remain God of Japan no occupation and no disarmament. I have already provided the link.

Did you call General MacArthur yet, Rain Man?

 

[Unkotare]

...They had not been defeated in 1000 years.......

Did you really think about this before posting?

 

[Unkotare]

...

BOTTOM LINE, the bombs ended the war and saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives.
QED

This is the simplistic slogan behind which those who lack the character to address the central moral issue hide.




The ignorance behind the constant reference to Okinawa from people who clearly do not understand how mainlanders viewed the people of the outer islands at the time is also telling.

 

[Vandalshandle]

..... They were training their children to kill invaders with bamboo lances. They had made the decision that they preferred death of the entire nation before dishonor (surrender). ......

Another numbskull clinging to 74 year old propaganda that was meant for someone else in the first place.

Actually, I got my information from my step-father, who was in Okinawa. I am very much aware that you have a revisionist agenda, but it does not fly with us who were directly impacted by the war. I'm really not impressed at all by theories from people who are, at most, next generation to what dramatically affected my life, first hand. In short, The Japanese rulers where on a collision course with karma, and it was a bitch.

 

[Unkotare]

..... They were training their children to kill invaders with bamboo lances. They had made the decision that they preferred death of the entire nation before dishonor (surrender). ......

Another numbskull clinging to 74 year old propaganda that was meant for someone else in the first place.

Actually, I got my information from my step-father, who was in Okinawa. I am very much aware that you have a revisionist agenda, but it does not fly with us who were directly impacted by the war. I'm really not impressed at all by theories from people who are, at most, next generation to what dramatically affected my life, first hand. In short, The Japanese rulers where on a collision course with karma, and it was a bitch.

Looking at history honestly is not "revision." Clinging to simplistic talking points that enable avoidance of the moral problems inherent in war is NOT legitimate study of history.

 

[Vandalshandle]

..... They were training their children to kill invaders with bamboo lances. They had made the decision that they preferred death of the entire nation before dishonor (surrender). ......

Another numbskull clinging to 74 year old propaganda that was meant for someone else in the first place.

Actually, I got my information from my step-father, who was in Okinawa. I am very much aware that you have a revisionist agenda, but it does not fly with us who were directly impacted by the war. I'm really not impressed at all by theories from people who are, at most, next generation to what dramatically affected my life, first hand. In short, The Japanese rulers where on a collision course with karma, and it was a bitch.

Looking at history honestly is not "revision." Clinging to simplistic talking points that enable avoidance of the moral problems inherent in war is NOT legitimate study of history.

Well, when a country establishes an official war policy of recruiting suicide kamikaze pilots to sink our ships, it is very easy to draw a line between that, and a policy of "no surrender". In fact, it is self evident.

 

[elektra]

so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...

ok

you win

you had to kill those old people to make them say "uncle"

July 30th, 900 sailors were killed by the Japanese. Yet you make the outrageous claim that the japanese had no navy? August 18th the last B29 is shot down by the japanese, 9 days after Nagasaki, 6 days after the japanese cry "uncle". If I can use your pathetic term.

And how many Americans were crying, "uncle", in the torture camps!!!! How many you piece of shit. They were literally crying uncle, being beaten with bats, suffering, dying, yes americans crying uncle, for their lives, so that they could see their grandparents, and children.

How many died because of people like you! You would of had every american die by torture. You are a problem, your kind have been around since WW II. Afraid to fight, weak, pathetic, allowing americans to cry uncle under extreme torture.

Why, because you hate america so much you would have our men die of cruel torture and beatings under the worst conditions.

Cry uncle, yep, our american prisoners of war cried uncle and they got no quarter.

 

[karpenter]

Of course, that is not the message they would have taken. They would have immediately puzzled out the danger to a city from the destruction they found. Cities, like Tokyo.

Speaking Of Tokyo
That Was The Most Deadly Bombing Raid Of WWII
It Was Done With Incendiaries
NOT An Atomic Bomb

And Before You Even Say It
I'll Say:
'That Presumes No One Died After The Firestorm From Injuries'

 

[MoonPie]

Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.

The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.

The real game changer was the USSR entering the war. It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.

The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.

.

They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.

 

[elektra]

They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.

Oh, yet there is no proof of that. I guess under your version of history it was the Soviet navy that was preparing to attack Japan? It was the Soviet air force dropping bombs on Japan?

The Japanese were so afraid of the Soviets, they fought the Soviets another week after they surrendered to the USA?

 

[sparky]

Hey. I've read books on the subject. Nagasaki was deemed necessary to convince the Japanese that we had more than one bomb. At the time, the Japanese military establishment was telling everyone that we only had one bomb and that Hiroshima was just something to remember like "Remember the Alamo". They were still dead-set on continuing the war. The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat. Defeat to them means suicide. So we had to drop another one to crush their hopes. The result was the end of a war and the end of the bloodshed.

The Japanese were not dead set on continuing the war, In fact, they were seeking peace negotiations through the Swiss and the Soviets.

The real game changer was the USSR entering the war. It opened a whole new front and hundreds of battle hardened divisions, with the potential of Japan itself being partitioned like Germany was.

The other key thing was that the US had dropped it's insistence that Hirohito had to abdicate AFTER the Soviets got into it.

.

They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.

Because unconditional to the USA was a universe apart from communist oblivion's epic casualties

~S~

 

[elektra]

Looking at history honestly is not "revision." Clinging to simplistic talking points that enable avoidance of the moral problems inherent in war is NOT legitimate study of history.

War is strategy, moral points during war is politics, politics loses wars.

 

[MoonPie]

They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.

Oh, yet there is no proof of that. I guess under your version of history it was the Soviet navy that was preparing to attack Japan? It was the Soviet air force dropping bombs on Japan?

The Japanese were so afraid of the Soviets, they fought the Soviets another week after they surrendered to the USA?

They weren't still holding out for terms after Hiroshima??
What navy or air force? I didn't say anything about the navy or air force. The Soviet Army was 3 days out. I don't know if they were already at Manchuria when we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.

So you're saying we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima but they were still holding out because.... they didn't realize the damage it had done? Then suddenly capitulated when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, like "oh shit, the Americans are serious about this!"

 

[Frannie]

They only had two bombs, they d

When they dropped the first bomb, they only had one bomb. The second was not operational until after the hiroshima bombing. And a third bomb was almost operational. And 12 more were in the works and could be ready within a couple weeks. So, really, they had 15 bombs, if they had 2.


And, if it didn't work over the city, the difference is...?

Then they should have waited and dropped 15

Why?

Because the bombs dropped might have failed or the planes downed, I suppose that was one reason to drop them sooner so as to test them.

Anyway it all worked out for the better

The fish was all cooked

 

[Frannie]

How many of those reading this, would not be here if Truman has not used the bombs and ordered the invasion of Japan?

Those are not necessarily the only two options (nuking the cities, invading). We could have dropped one in a more remote area. The japanese scientiats would have gotten the picture.

The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.

Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.

If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.

When did the Japs offer to surrender before they did? Okinawa had almost as much allied losses as the entire Vietnam war. Kid you are really living inside your pill bottle...………………..

Refill your prescription and take with alcohol, grain alcohol

 

[Frannie]

If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable,

Leaving the Emperor in place was pretty much untenable. ....

Evidently not.

Right, I see what you are saying. I should have been more clear.

You would understand the other idiot...…………………...

 

[elektra]

They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima. We wanted unconditional surrender.
The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.

Oh, yet there is no proof of that. I guess under your version of history it was the Soviet navy that was preparing to attack Japan? It was the Soviet air force dropping bombs on Japan?

The Japanese were so afraid of the Soviets, they fought the Soviets another week after they surrendered to the USA?

They weren't still holding out for terms after Hiroshima??
What navy or air force? I didn't say anything about the navy or air force. The Soviet Army was 3 days out. I don't know if they were already at Manchuria when we dropped the bomb on Nagasaki.

So you're saying we dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima but they were still holding out because.... they didn't realize the damage it had done? Then suddenly capitulated when the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, like "oh shit, the Americans are serious about this!"

For a country who's culture is, never surrender, death before surrender, it takes much to surrender.

You actually think that Soviet troops in mainland China that had zero chance of ever invading Japan caused the Japanese to be afraid?

After Hiroshima, japan was not holding out for better terms. The Army and Navy insisted on fighting to the last man.

The Emperor was trying to find a way to surrender without being killed by the Japanese army or navy leaders.

It was a real internal fight to surrender under any terms.

 

[toobfreak]

The attack on Pearl Harbor (very bad decision) was of course understood as an instigation to war, and war is always terrible, but it is worth remembering that Pearl Harbor was a military base (and not even in one of the United States) while the only two atomic bombs in existence at the time were dropped on civilian centers clearly and deliberately to incinerate women, children, and the elderly in an essentially defeated nation.

Correct. I do understand it. We were tired of losing our children.

If fdr hadn't dismissed overtures to surrender as being politically untenable, the war might have ended much sooner, saving the lives of many thousands of US servicemen.

I have REPEATEDLY ASK you for a link to a credible source for that claim. .......

Mountains of evidence have been provided on many previous threads, you doddering old fool. You just revert to Rain Man mode again and again.

No they haven't and here you are refusing to source your claims again. I source mine every time I am asked cause I am not a lying ASSHOLE that has no sources.

ShitferBrrains MO:

• No source cited for name claims.
• No source sited for his mountains of evidence.
• Insults and name calling as always used as a deflection away from the fact that the dude never has shit to back up a thing he ever says.

Well, maybe shit is all he has...

 

[Unkotare]

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

BULLSHIT. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the emperor was convinced to surrender. Easy to speak in 20/20 hindsight almost 75 years after the fact. The truth is those bombs saved American lives and set the pattern by which all future nuclear war or the possibility of it is measured. Take your blame-America-First mentality and shove it up the cornhole.

Another 'hero' clinging to historically discredited talking points because he lacks the salt to look at the central moral issue clearly and directly. What comforting ignorance.

 

[Unkotare]

...

Well, when a country establishes an official war policy of recruiting suicide kamikaze pilots to sink our ships....

There's another subject you probably don't understand much at all. You should start another thread about that.