Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Apparently, you don't.The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the Enola Gay totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.
Murder? As in these people were killed ilegally?It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people...
Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
Ha, ha, ha. You are so full of bull crap. East Germany comes to mind.We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
We had the bomb, nobody else did
At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
Except that it really wasn't.
What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted. they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.
We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region... As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950. Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.
USSR wasn't "installing puppet states in Eastern Europe" until after that date, when they saw a mustering of force in western Europe, particularly Germany, by the same country that had pre-empted them out of Japan with the world's then-only Nuke, and after hiding out in Africa while they (the USSR) did all the heavy work in Europe. And they had nothing to do with Korea.
And China was never "ours" to "lose" anyway. Perhaps you're thinking of the Philippines?
Moreover, Japan and the USSR were neighboring states that had already been in conflict; Russia had the same concern about Japan to its east that it had about Germany to its west. That gives them more of an interest in containing Japanese imperialism than it does us, several thousand miles away. They'd never been invaded by Alaska.
This whole fantasy of USSR-as-invader bent on world domination is a sicko fantasy contrived in the warped minds of the Dulles Brothers and their ilk. History tells us how far off the mark it is. USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe. They were in need of reconstruction, which btw they also got snubbed out of when we were getting Germany and the UK back on their feet.
See the whole picture.
Says the third grade art teacherThe 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.
They were not dropped from planes nor were there enemy planes to shoot down the B29they did test them at the Trinity testBecause 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.Then they should have waited and dropped 15They 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...?
Why?
Anyway it all worked out for the better
The fish was all cooked
Just me but I would have destroyed Tokyo and Nagoya as well. Nagoya had the armory making rifles, I would have melted itno--NO--they are not waiting weeks and MONTHS---the war had been going on for 3.5 YEARSThen they should have waited and dropped 15They 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...?
Japan had to resort to getting the kamikaze pilots drunk on rice wine before they took off....
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.
Ha, ha, ha. You are so full of bull crap. East Germany comes to mind.We had three bombs
One was tested at Alamogordo, one at Hiroshima, one at Nagasaki
We had the bomb, nobody else did
At that time, no invasion was necessary. We could make more bombs. We did make more bombs. Time was on our side.
Except that it really wasn't.
What we were realizing by 1945 is that the Soviets couldn't really be trusted. they were installing Soviet puppet states in Eastern Europe, and now they were in a position to send hundreds of divisions into China, Korea and Japan.
We'd have gotten to the same place, but with the Sovietns firmly in charge of the region... As it was, we still ended up losing China in 1949, and the Korean war in 1950. Imagine if the USSR had completely occupied Korea and maybe half of Japan.
USSR wasn't "installing puppet states in Eastern Europe" until after that date, when they saw a mustering of force in western Europe, particularly Germany, by the same country that had pre-empted them out of Japan with the world's then-only Nuke, and after hiding out in Africa while they (the USSR) did all the heavy work in Europe. And they had nothing to do with Korea.
And China was never "ours" to "lose" anyway. Perhaps you're thinking of the Philippines?
Moreover, Japan and the USSR were neighboring states that had already been in conflict; Russia had the same concern about Japan to its east that it had about Germany to its west. That gives them more of an interest in containing Japanese imperialism than it does us, several thousand miles away. They'd never been invaded by Alaska.
This whole fantasy of USSR-as-invader bent on world domination is a sicko fantasy contrived in the warped minds of the Dulles Brothers and their ilk. History tells us how far off the mark it is. USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe. They were in need of reconstruction, which btw they also got snubbed out of when we were getting Germany and the UK back on their feet.
See the whole picture.
The USSR was a lousy marxists socialist hell hole that should of been nuked along with mao.
yes--I knowThey were not dropped from planes nor were there enemy planes to shoot down the B29they did test them at the Trinity testBecause 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.Then they should have waited and dropped 15When 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...?
Why?
Anyway it all worked out for the better
The fish was all cooked
Next
A tower was used no altitude fuse needed
Why would we nuke our own ally? Think things through much?
Feel free to (try to) find a way to counter my historical citations with actual contraindicating history. All you have here is...
All I did was set the facts on the floor. You have a tantrum about it.
An interesting read is a book on Soviet involvement with allies from as far back as the Tehran Conference called Racing The Enemy by Tsuyoshi Hasagawa.Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
The Soviets were supposed to join in. We asked them to.
Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
The Soviets were supposed to join in. We asked them to.
Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
The lesson every country can learn from history is never underestimate your enemies ability to surprise the shit out of you.
The US learned that.......supposedly, in VN. Saddam learned that in Kuwait. Throughout history it's never changed.
The Japanese learned it.
Iran is about to learn a history lesson.
'''murder'''-----hahahhahahahahhahahhahahahPort. Check. Airbase Check. Manufacturing Hub. Check, Army Headquarters. Check, Troops there. Check. Training civilians for invasion. Check. But golly gee it wasn't a military target HONEST.
This is sick, especially coming from someone who claims to be a former Marine. Yes, Hiroshima had a port, since it was on a coast, but the port was hardly used anymore by then--it was somewhat clogged with sunken ships and port-bound ships that didn't dare leave the port. ALL Japanese civilians were being trained for an invasion, so that proves nothing, unless you're going to tell me that women and children wielding bamboo spears were a serious threat to us. Yes, Hiroshima had a fair amount of factories; most of them were on the outskirts of the city, and they were almost completely unharmed in the nuking because the nuke was dropped near the center of the city. Troops and an HQ? Yeah, they were garrison troops. An airbase?! Yeah, a small one. The city had no fortifications, no outer defenses, etc. I ask again, why do you suppose we felt confident enough to send the Enola Gay totally unprotected by any fighters? Hey? We both know the answer to that question.
It is sad and obscene to see an alleged former Marine trying to justify the murder of over 100,000 people, at least half of them women and children, by making the ludicrous claim that Hiroshima was a valid military target. The factories on the outskirts of the city were valid targets, and the small unfortified compound where the troops stayed was a fair target, but those were only a small part of the city and contained a very small part of the population.
300,000 + civilians = a civilian center. You lack the courage to look at the issue clearly and directly.
We don't bomb civilian centers. What is wrong with you? You are as inhumane as some of the Japanese soldiers you excoriate.
300,000 civilians did not die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.
Over 200,000 died from those two nuke attacks, and tens of thousands more suffered from radiation effects for the rest of their lives.
FDR screamed because the Japanese bombed a handful of cities in China. We bombed dozens of cities in Japan and dropped far more bombs on them than the Japanese dropped on the cities they bombed.
You have not provided a single Government document to prove your claims YET. And all you have on MacArthur is an unsourced book.
I have linked to the ACTUAL Japanese Government documents ACTUAL Intercepts of Japanese Government and ACTUAL US documents you have not done any of that at all.
First of all, you realize that Eisenhower and Leahy stated in their own memoirs that they had opposed nuking Japan and that they still thought it was wrong and unnecessary, right? You realize that Admiral, the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, indicated in his memoir that nuking Japan was unnecessary and that Japan could have been defeated by naval blockade alone, right? We’re not talking about second-hand accounts in these cases.
Second, MacArthur’s opposition to nuking Japan was confirmed by his biographer, William Manchester, and by his former consultant during our occupation of Japan, Norman Cousins. What’s more, Richard Nixon said that MacArthur told him that he believed we should not have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Hiroshima: Quotes
We didn't need to drop the bomb -- and even our WW II military icons knew it
You wanna see a link to a “Government document”? Okay, how about the report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), which concluded that Japan would have surrendered without nukes and without an invasion by no later than December 1945, even if the Soviets had not invaded? The USSBS spent months studying the effects of our conventional and atomic bombing of Japan, interviewing former Japanese officials, and interviewing former Japanese generals and admirals, and concluded that Japan would have surrendered by no later than December 1945, and probably before November, even if we had not used the atomic bomb and even if the Soviet Union had not entered the war against Japan:
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (page 26, available at United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War))
and it was Kimmel's OPINION that they wouldn't attack Pearlit is the Survey's opinion
Yes, given time. That's pretty much the topic of the entire thread.so, you think they would've surrendered with NO ABombs??
They were damn close. They began their attack on Manchuria on 6 August and quickly decimated Japanese forces.Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
The Soviets were supposed to join in. We asked them to.
Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
Another major reason that we sought an end to the war as soon as possible, was because the Soviets had just joined in, and would have invaded Japan, if we had not invaded, ourselves, or ended the war with nuclear weapons, first. The end result would have been a Soviet Japan, which would have destabilized the entire Pacific rim. That would have changed history dramatically for the worst, as far as the free world was concerned, not to mention for the Japanese.
The Soviets were supposed to join in. We asked them to.
Prior to that they asked us to join in in Europe, and we dithered in Africa.
I am aware of that, but we knew that we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade her.
yes--I knowThey were not dropped from planes nor were there enemy planes to shoot down the B29they did test them at the Trinity testBecause 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
Next
A tower was used no altitude fuse needed
........but you don't want to '''test''' an air droppable ''device'' that cost mucho $$$$$$$ and took years to make ..that would be idiotic
Why would we nuke our own ally? Think things through much?
Feel free to (try to) find a way to counter my historical citations with actual contraindicating history. All you have here is...
All I did was set the facts on the floor. You have a tantrum about it.
Tantrum? Ha, ha, ha. Is that all you got?
USSR, was not our ally at the end of WW II. Sure on paper yes, but their actions were not of an ally.
Why nuke the Marxist Socialists. To save millions of Russians a horrific death. To save the Chinese, the cambodians, the vietnamese, and even the Cubans.
Yes, it is all over my head, how you can make one claim such as this:[
And yes I'd say overrunning Nazi Germany and then invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
This is all flying blithely over your head, isn't it.
USSR was in no position to invade or dominate anything after bearing the brunt of the war in Europe
invading Japan after already sustaining twenty million dead, are indeed the actions of an ally.
