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

[mikegriffith1]

The body count of the GI's fighting the War were growing everyday.........Japan's surrender ended that.............now didn't it...................

HUH??? The only place where GIs were doing anything approaching substantive fighting when we nuked Japan was on Luzon, and that was only because we were needlessly pursuing the Japanese into the jungle after they had given up trying to engage us and had retreated.

History is what it is..................decisions made to save American lives and end the war.............Now the outrage about it forever...........on how evil we were for doing it.

I take it you haven't read the OP and my replies. We did not need to nuke Japan to end the war without an invasion.

Trashing America for Racial politics..................

No, but you're trashing American principles by defending the actions of Harry Truman, a liberal Democrat who later handed over China to Mao's Communists and sentenced at least 30 million Chinese to die under Mao's rule.

Patriotism is not blindly defending the actions of a liberal Democratic administration, an administration that included Soviet spies and sympathizers.

Ignoring the horrible things the Japanese did in that War..........which helped cause the decision to drop the nukes......OH WELL.

You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.

 

[elektra]

HUH??? The only place where GIs were doing anything approaching substantive fighting when we nuked Japan was on Luzon, and that was only because we were needlessly pursuing the Japanese into the jungle after they had given up trying to engage us and had retreated.

Thus far, you have lost all your debates in support of your OP.

The Japanese were at war with the USA the week we dropped the bomb on hiroshima. Over 1,000 U.S. military men were killed that week.

At least, 84 Americans were killed by the Japanese in one engagement alone! On August 6th, the day we stopped Hiroshima from actively fighting the war.

Certainly with the level of education you claim you know these simple facts. Hence, your post is pure lie.

You know the truth but choose to be a filthy liar.

 

[elektra]

And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.

After losing this thread, failing at supporting your OP and ignoring dozens of posts that point that out, I doubt you are man enough to prove this post of yours is anything but a lie, but who knows, maybe calling you out as a unpatriotic filthy liar will shame you into responding.

The Japanese had pilots and planes that could of intercepted the Enola Gay, that is pure fact, so your sick little fallacy that Hiroshima was defenseless illustrates your character, which as I stated is that of an unpatriotic filthy liar.

Further, the Japanese did shoot down a B-32 killing at least one man, over Japan, ten days after Hiroshima. How is it possible that a person as educated as yourself does not know this?

The answer is, it is impossible for you not to know. You are simply a purposeful, unpatriotic, filthy, liar.

 

[Unkotare]

And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.

After losing this thread, failing at supporting your OP and ignoring dozens of posts that point that out, I doubt you are man enough to prove this post of yours is anything but a lie, but who knows, maybe calling you out as a unpatriotic filthy liar will gall you into responding.

The Japanese has pilots and planes that could of intercepted the Enola Gay, that is pure fact, so your sick little fallacy that Hiroshima was defenseless illustrates your character, which as I stated is that of an unpatriotic filthy liar.

Further, the Japanese did shoot down a B-32 killing at least one man, over Japan, ten days after Hiroshima. How is it possible that a person as educated as yourself does not know this?

The answer is, it is impossible for you not to know. You are simply a purposeful, unpatriotic, filthy, liar.

Disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[Markle]

You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.

As you know, that is a total, 100% lie. As with Germany, the ONLY acceptable terms was an unconditional surrender. What part of that is not clear to you?

QED!

 

[Unkotare]

You can repeat this myth a million times, but that won't make it true. Some Japanese in some areas did commit war crimes, but we committed plenty of war crimes too. And nuking two defenseless cities when we knew Japan's civilian leaders wanted to surrender on acceptable terms was arguably one of the worst war crimes in world history.

As you know, that is a total, 100% lie. As with Germany, the ONLY acceptable terms was an unconditional surrender. What part of that is not clear to you?

QED!

In the end, we accepted the only condition emphasized in the overtures to surrender which were floated and about which fdr was informed long before the atomic bombs were dropped. Before, even, the bloody Battle of Okinawa. fdr didn’t care who died on either side as long as he could fulfill his desire to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Thus far, you have lost all your debates in support of your OP.

Uh-huh. You bet.

The Japanese were at war with the USA the week we dropped the bomb on hiroshima. Over 1,000 U.S. military men were killed that week.

I already addressed this point, but, as usual, you simply ignored my response and repeated your talking point. Yeah, of course we were still "at war" with Japan--because Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.

At least, 84 Americans were killed by the Japanese in one engagement alone! On August 6th, the day we stopped Hiroshima from actively fighting the war.

See above. You do realize that by mid-June, at the latest, the Japanese had ceased all offensive operations, right? We were needlessly pursuing them when they were clearly contained and posed no threat to us, such as on Luzon.

Certainly with the level of education you claim you know these simple facts. Hence, your post is pure lie. You know the truth but choose to be a filthy liar.

No, the problem is that you only seek talking points and refuse to read scholarship that challenges your warped sense of "patriotism."

 

[Markle]

In the end, we accepted the only condition emphasized in the overtures to surrender which were floated and about which fdr was informed long before the atomic bombs were dropped. Before, even, the bloody Battle of Okinawa. fdr didn’t care who died on either side as long as he could fulfill his desire to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.

It is so good that we have you who can commune with the long-deceased FDR. Who else can we turn to for such pearls of wisdom!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death

Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.

 

[MaryL]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. 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 and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

From my article: Oh come on now. The Japanese killed so many innocent civilians all through Indo China, and in China before 1941. I cant pinpoint the numbers. That, my friend was the REAL obscenity here. Its too bad say, the massive firebombing of Tokyo in March 1945 wasn't enough to stop the Japanese war machine... No. One Nuke wasn't enough. No, it took two. The Japanese war machine had a certain momentum it took the blandishment of absolute power to curb their war dogs...

 

[Unkotare]

In the end, we accepted the only condition emphasized in the overtures to surrender which were floated and about which fdr was informed long before the atomic bombs were dropped. Before, even, the bloody Battle of Okinawa. fdr didn’t care who died on either side as long as he could fulfill his desire to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.

It is so good that we have you who can commune with the long-deceased FDR. Who else can we turn to for such pearls of wisdom!

fdr was informed about feelers for surrender and responded by deriding McArthur for being poor at politics, and he disregarded the notion entirely. It is not an unreasonable conclusion that he was not interested in an earlier peace.

 

[Unkotare]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. 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 and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)
​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

From my article: Oh come on now. The Japanese killed so many innocent civilians all through Indo China, and in China before 1941.....

So, you are claiming the the US decided to drop atomic bombs on civilians as an act of revenge on behalf of other nations?

 

[Unkotare]

The Japanese military was prepared to fight to the death

Let them starve for a few months, see how "ready" they are, then.

The civilian population had been starving for more than a few months already. The "they will never surrender!" nonsense stems from a comic-book level notion of culture that is ignorant of history.

 

[elektra]

Thus far, you have lost all your debates in support of your OP.

Uh-huh. You bet.

Then answer the question, how many days should we of waited between dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you said three was too little. How many days should we of waited?

You also based the OP on McGeorge Bundy, who was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II who knew nothing of the Atomic bomb. Why would you use Bundy who knew nothing and was not involved in any decision making in regards to the Atomic bomb.

Uh-huh, I bet, indeed. The basis of the OP, how many days and what in the hell does Bundy have to do with anything when he knew nothing.

Go ahead. It is your OP.

 

[Markle]

Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.

Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.

QED!

 

[elektra]

The Japanese were at war with the USA the week we dropped the bomb on hiroshima. Over 1,000 U.S. military men were killed that week.

.....you simply ignored my response and repeated your talking point. Yeah, of course we were still "at war" with Japan--because Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.

It is a talking point? A fact of history, the deaths of thousands of our men fighting, is a "talking point".

You are nothing more than a lousy piece of shit. You are the one clinging to talking points while describing facts of history as such! The deaths of thousands of Americans is simply a talking point in your warped opinion!!!! That is the cheap work of lying charaltan that has lost, can not prove his OP to be truthful.

You are truly, a dishonorable person. So highly educated, yet you can not admit facts of history, you must obfuscate the truth to make your troubled argument. Our men were dying because the Japanese were never going to surrender.

Suburo Sakai says as much in August of 1945 right before the bomb is dropped, in his book, Samurai, on page 347 "There was no possibility of surrender. We would fight to the last man".

 

[elektra]

Truman refused to do what most of his advisers urged him to do and because he refused to act on the intelligence that Japan's civilian leaders wanted to end the war on acceptable terms.

You have not proven this, not in the least. Not one of Truman's advisors disagreed with Truman at any point on any point. You think you proved this, go ahead and link to the post. I am sure my response follows closely, which you ignored for you have no answer when confronted with facts and knowledge.

And you call yourself educated? At over a dozen colleges and universities?

Go ahead, show us, show us that you have proven this! Link to the post with the proof, prove you are not a lying charlatan.

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare, once again, and I'll type slowly for you.

Once again, the bottom line is the two bombs ended WW-II in the Pacific.

QED!

A war that might have been ended sooner with less loss of life on both sides. Or don’t you care about at least the American lives that might have been saved?

 

[mikegriffith1]

Then answer the question, how many days should we of waited between dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you said three was too little. How many days should we of waited?

You also based the OP on McGeorge Bundy, who was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II who knew nothing of the Atomic bomb. Why would you use Bundy who knew nothing and was not involved in any decision making in regards to the Atomic bomb.

Uh-huh, I bet, indeed. The basis of the OP, how many days and what in the hell does Bundy have to do with anything when he knew nothing.

Go ahead. It is your OP.

I already answered every one of these arguments in a previous reply.

And, again, FYI, Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's defense of nuking Japan. In fact, reportedly, he helped Stimson "change his mind" about the nuking.

 

[elektra]

Then answer the question, how many days should we of waited between dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you said three was too little. How many days should we of waited?

You also based the OP on McGeorge Bundy, who was a Lieutenant in the Army during WW II who knew nothing of the Atomic bomb. Why would you use Bundy who knew nothing and was not involved in any decision making in regards to the Atomic bomb.

Uh-huh, I bet, indeed. The basis of the OP, how many days and what in the hell does Bundy have to do with anything when he knew nothing.

Go ahead. It is your OP.

I already answered every one of these arguments in a previous reply.

And, again, FYI, Bundy helped ghost-write Stimson's defense of nuking Japan. In fact, reportedly, he helped Stimson "change his mind" about the nuking.

Bundy helped Stimson write a book, so Bundy had absolutely nothing to do with dropping the bomb and thus far you have not provided a source or even an accurate quote as to what bundy had said. So your use of a lieutenant in the Army during the time has zero relevance.

You answered? You are a lousy liar, period. If you answered you could easily link to the post.

How many days would of been enough time waiting between bombs. You have not answered that, and stating that you did simply shows you are a liar, for it would be just as easy now, to state how many days.

You have failed at proving that your opinion is based on any facts or is relevant to our history. Again, you are a lousy lying charlatan.