Was Hiroshima Wrong?

[rightwinger]

Maybe, maybe not.

We will never know

But I suspect the outcome of the war would have been the same if we had spared Nagasaki

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

From your link..

Barton J. Bernstein and Martin Sherwin have argued that if top Washington policymakers had kept tight control of the delivery of the bomb instead of delegating it to Groves the attack on Nagasaki could have been avoided. The combination of the first bomb and the Soviet declaration of war would have been enough to induce Tokyo's surrender

We should have allowed more than three days to negotiate the surrender of Japan after Hiroshima. Worst case....we still could have bombed it if negotiations were not proceeding

 

[westwall]

We will never know

But I suspect the outcome of the war would have been the same if we had spared Nagasaki

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

Three days is all we gave them

No additional evidence of our new found power was provided by Nagasaki. If the Emperor was in a power struggle with the Army wouldn't more time been of assistance. We still had the second bomb....we could have dropped it any time

3 days
A week
A month

The outcome would have been the same but we could have saved 75,000 cicilians

The problem with your argument is the war would have been continuing with more US casualties. A month of casualties would have been around 65,000 to 75,000 based on the fighting on Okinawa. We don't know the exact amount but it is a fair estimate. So 75,000 Japanese casualties or 65 to 75 thousand US casualties? If I'm the Pres that's a no brainer, I guess not for you though.

 

[rightwinger]

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

Three days is all we gave them

No additional evidence of our new found power was provided by Nagasaki. If the Emperor was in a power struggle with the Army wouldn't more time been of assistance. We still had the second bomb....we could have dropped it any time

3 days
A week
A month

The outcome would have been the same but we could have saved 75,000 cicilians

The problem with your argument is the war would have been continuing with more US casualties. A month of casualties would have been around 65,000 to 75,000 based on the fighting on Okinawa. We don't know the exact amount but it is a fair estimate. So 75,000 Japanese casualties or 65 to 75 thousand US casualties? If I'm the Pres that's a no brainer, I guess not for you though.

There would not have been significant casualties. Casualties come when you invade new territory. After Hiroshima, you hold off the invasion while you pressure Tokyo. Keep up conventional bombing while you make it clear that this is the first of many such atomic bombs and that Tokyo itself would be a target.

With Russia entering the war, you also make it clear they will do better by surrendering to the US. I think they would have surrendered

If not....you can still hit Nagasaki (i seem to remember Nagasaki as a secondary target anyway)

 

[del]

Three days is all we gave them

No additional evidence of our new found power was provided by Nagasaki. If the Emperor was in a power struggle with the Army wouldn't more time been of assistance. We still had the second bomb....we could have dropped it any time

3 days
A week
A month

The outcome would have been the same but we could have saved 75,000 cicilians

The problem with your argument is the war would have been continuing with more US casualties. A month of casualties would have been around 65,000 to 75,000 based on the fighting on Okinawa. We don't know the exact amount but it is a fair estimate. So 75,000 Japanese casualties or 65 to 75 thousand US casualties? If I'm the Pres that's a no brainer, I guess not for you though.

There would not have been significant casualties. Casualties come when you invade new territory. After Hiroshima, you hold off the invasion while you pressure Tokyo. Keep up conventional bombing while you make it clear that this is the first of many such atomic bombs and that Tokyo itself would be a target.

With Russia entering the war, you also make it clear they will do better by surrendering to the US. I think they would have surrendered

If not....you can still hit Nagasaki (i seem to remember Nagasaki as a secondary target anyway)

significance is in the eye of the beholder. my dad was in the pacific; i would have considered his loss *significant*

it's easy to be right 60+ years after the fact, isn't it?

 

[JBeukema]

WRONG. No second bomb no surrender. The Emperor only intervened BECAUSE of the second bomb. READ the documents.

Did you read Kalam's link?

I have SOURCE DOCUMENTS, actual documents from the Japanese Government and the US Government. No guessing, no supposition, no moralizing. The actual discussions that occurred.

So does Kalam

I love the argument, though: we had to kill them to save them. Just as AQ had to kill us to get us to leave so we wouldn't face Allah's wrath. You see, they had our best interest in mind all along

 

[JBeukema]

The goal was to save lives or didn't you understand that? The goal was met, both American and Japanese lives were saved by the use of the bombs.

You didn't answer my question. Do the ends justify the means?

In war? YES.

So 9/11 is justified as soon as the next attack convinces America to leave the ME?

 

[JBeukema]

Three days is all we gave them

No additional evidence of our new found power was provided by Nagasaki. If the Emperor was in a power struggle with the Army wouldn't more time been of assistance. We still had the second bomb....we could have dropped it any time

3 days
A week
A month

The outcome would have been the same but we could have saved 75,000 cicilians

Do some reading. The Emperor REFUSED to intervene after the first bomb. He only acted after the second. He also knew about the coming winter and the military plans for suicide attacks.

obama worshippers don't understand.

I was a Paul supporter. Try again.

 

[JBeukema]

obama worshippers don't understand.

I was a Paul supporter. Try again.

Hi, you have received -293 reputation points from boedicca.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Fuck off moron - back on ignore for you.

Regards,
boedicca

Note: This is an automated message.

Wow, she really hates Ron Paul

 

[Sallow]

Why Because we did it and we're always right and they're a bunch of evil muslims with the wrong colour skin?

No, because one was to bring an end to Japan's war against us.

The other was to end America's aggression and meddling in the ME


So we were in this war before 9/11? You're arguing bin Laden's case for him now

. We are not at war with Muslims, or Islam.

Then why are we handing out bibles and putting biblical references on our weapons? Why do we support Zionism and Israel's campaign to control the holy land?

We are, however, destroying the hiding places of a bunch of ragheads

So we're back to racism again

Japan declared war on the United States..and they were actually pretty nasty when it came to civilians. They were almost as bad as the Nazis..they did medical experiments on Chinese prisoners while they were wide awake. They decapitated Americans that were captured. And they killed millions.

And this is not a tit for tat thing. We were fighting for our survival. Japan wanted to remain an intact power. That was simply unacceptable.

 

[JBeukema]

Japan declared war on the United States..

Some would argue that Americas actions constitute a declaration of war

and they were actually pretty nasty when it came to civilians.

Guantanamo? Baghram?

They were almost as bad as the Nazis..they did medical experiments on Chinese prisoners while they were wide awake

We tested Dioxin on our own people

Japan wanted to remain an intact power.

As did and does America

 

[rightwinger]

The problem with your argument is the war would have been continuing with more US casualties. A month of casualties would have been around 65,000 to 75,000 based on the fighting on Okinawa. We don't know the exact amount but it is a fair estimate. So 75,000 Japanese casualties or 65 to 75 thousand US casualties? If I'm the Pres that's a no brainer, I guess not for you though.

There would not have been significant casualties. Casualties come when you invade new territory. After Hiroshima, you hold off the invasion while you pressure Tokyo. Keep up conventional bombing while you make it clear that this is the first of many such atomic bombs and that Tokyo itself would be a target.

With Russia entering the war, you also make it clear they will do better by surrendering to the US. I think they would have surrendered

If not....you can still hit Nagasaki (i seem to remember Nagasaki as a secondary target anyway)

significance is in the eye of the beholder. my dad was in the pacific; i would have considered his loss *significant*

it's easy to be right 60+ years after the fact, isn't it?

Not saying I'm right...not saying I'm wrong.
It is all conjecture. I just think that before killing an additional 75,000 ciilians we should have given the surrender negotiations more than three days

Most of the casualties in the Pacific came from invading new islands. We already had the islands we needed to bomb Japan. An extra week would not have run up our casualties if we stand pat

 

[Sallow]

Japan declared war on the United States..

Some would argue that Americas actions constitute a declaration of war

and they were actually pretty nasty when it came to civilians.

Guantanamo? Baghram?

They were almost as bad as the Nazis..they did medical experiments on Chinese prisoners while they were wide awake

We tested Dioxin on our own people

Japan wanted to remain an intact power.

As did and does America

Japan was actively advocating for a peace accord when it attacked. I can't think of anything more despicable in terms of statecraft. And what exactly does Baghram and Guantamamo have to do with WWII? In terms of scope..the Rape of Nanjing was enormous. Some 17 million chinese civilians died as a result of the Japanese-Chinese conflict. So really, what the heck is Guantanmo and Baghram being injected here for?

And Japan..lost. Period. Their only option was unconditional surrender. And that's not the one they were going to take.

 

[amrchaos]

In War, destroying the enemy and their supporters is considered "RIGHT"!

So was Hiroshima wrong? They were Japanese citizens. They supported the Japanese Military. The Japanese military was our enemy at the time. Destroying them is therefore right!


The issue of morality may contain a dependency on the situation. That is why murder/killing a man in self defense is just and Murder/killing a man for enjoyment is unjust. The question is why and for what purpose have you killed/murdered a man.

Note also, the question is posed to the society of man and not to some transcendental being that praises man as its cherished creation. If it was, this being would probably not forgive man in either situation since the murderer destroyed one of its precious creations. Is it not better to be in the good graces of this creator and die than to displease it and live? That is a very knotty theological problem that requires more explainations from the theist than I can ever help to delve into.

 

[WillowTree]

And Nagasaki? How many non-combatants were knowingly slaughtered in order to terrorize the government of Japan into granting our demands?

Better Question.



Was Pearl HarboUr wrong?

 

[Kalam]

And Nagasaki? How many non-combatants were knowingly slaughtered in order to terrorize the government of Japan into granting our demands?

Better Question.



Was Pearl HarboUr wrong?

Sure. But less so than 9/11 and Hiroshima because its targets weren't civilians.

 

[manifold]

The mental gymnastics some people are willing to perform in order to preserve, in their obviously weak minds, the notion of American righteousness is a serious laugh riot! If I could rep JB again for this I would.

PS: The actions of the US Government and military need not be righteous to be in the best interests of our nation and it's people. What a silly, naive third grade notion indeed.

 

[westwall]

Japan declared war on the United States..

Some would argue that Americas actions constitute a declaration of war

and they were actually pretty nasty when it came to civilians.

Guantanamo? Baghram?

They were almost as bad as the Nazis..they did medical experiments on Chinese prisoners while they were wide awake

We tested Dioxin on our own people

Japan wanted to remain an intact power.

As did and does America

Seriously? You're going to equate Gitmo and Abu Ghraib (which is what i think you meant)
with the Rape of Nanking? Seriously?

 

[westwall]

There would not have been significant casualties. Casualties come when you invade new territory. After Hiroshima, you hold off the invasion while you pressure Tokyo. Keep up conventional bombing while you make it clear that this is the first of many such atomic bombs and that Tokyo itself would be a target.

With Russia entering the war, you also make it clear they will do better by surrendering to the US. I think they would have surrendered

If not....you can still hit Nagasaki (i seem to remember Nagasaki as a secondary target anyway)

significance is in the eye of the beholder. my dad was in the pacific; i would have considered his loss *significant*

it's easy to be right 60+ years after the fact, isn't it?

Not saying I'm right...not saying I'm wrong.
It is all conjecture. I just think that before killing an additional 75,000 ciilians we should have given the surrender negotiations more than three days

Most of the casualties in the Pacific came from invading new islands. We already had the islands we needed to bomb Japan. An extra week would not have run up our casualties if we stand pat

Yes, they would, we were still rooting out defenders on Iwo, and Okinawa and in the PI etc. etc. etc. As long as the Japanese were an entity there was continuous combat.

 

[westwall]

And Nagasaki? How many non-combatants were knowingly slaughtered in order to terrorize the government of Japan into granting our demands?

Better Question.



Was Pearl HarboUr wrong?

Sure. But less so than 9/11 and Hiroshima because its targets weren't civilians.

Actually the Japanese strafed civilian targets that happened across their path, 68 civilians were killed during the attack and the Japanese had to go out of their way to kill them.

 

[Kalam]

Better Question.



Was Pearl HarboUr wrong?

Sure. But less so than 9/11 and Hiroshima because its targets weren't civilians.

Actually the Japanese strafed civilian targets that happened across their path, 68 civilians were killed during the attack and the Japanese had to go out of their way to kill them.

Yet they weren't the primary target and 68 isn't quite 3,000 or 200,000.