We Were Right to Drop the Bomb

[Correll]

No. I have no problems with the decision to use nukes. None.
MAD prevented Total War.

What does MAD have to do with all the undeclared unnecessary "wars" we have fought?

Was Vietnam going to nuke us?
Korea?
Iraq in the first Gulf war?
The second war in Iraq?

How about Afghanistan?

Yeah all those piddly ass backwards countries were a real threat to America

Like I said we should be ashamed that our soldiers are nothing but game pieces to be wasted on brinksmanship rather than fighting in just and necessary wars

Vietnam was part of the COntainment Strategy. We could not make it a total war, because doing so would invite MAD.

Ditto Korea.

IOW neither was a threat to us but we sent tens of thousands of our soldiers into the meat grinder for nothing

No, both were real threats to US as allies and proxies of the Soviet Union.

I don't think so

Well, generations of American voters and leaders, as well as Soviet leaders disagreed with you.

NOt to mention quite a few allied voters and leaders who fought alongside of US in both places.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm listening. I just wanted you to be clear before I responded.

The point I was trying to make was that your conclusion is self serving to your anti-american bias.


Much like the Gipper's serves his anti-government bias.

Your belief that you, as opposed to the rest of US, have "yours eyes open" is just your telling yourself that you are smarter and better than the rest of US.

Like I said, it is nice you have a good self image.

But it really doesn't do a thing to support your position.

Imo. my eyes are open and yours are blinded by your anti-american bias.

Thanks for enjoying.

Now, you might want to accuse me of having a pro-american bias.

The difference between us is that I am aware of my biases.

Unlike you, my eyes are ACTUALLY open.

At least compared to you.

Anti-American bias? Really? So I disagree with you, therefore I have "anti-American bias", oh give me a break.

Am I smarter than the rest of the US? Not necessarily, however many people have the heads stuck up the proverbial ass of the US govt's media machine. However you're claiming I'm biased for no reason other than you are trying to chip away at me. I'm sorry, but many people are biased because they simply accept that the US is right. Cowboys 'n' Injuns syndrome. Cowboys are the good guys, committing genocide, and the Injuns are the bad guys who are receiving genocide and the destruction of their way of life and the taking of their land.

The same. Whatever the US does it must be good because we're the US and we only do good things. The Iranians and Iraqis and Libyans and Syrians and ISIS and everyone must be bad because they're our enemies and we fight for good. It's black and white, nothing else.

However I'm not looking at good v. evil. I see evil v. evil.

But then if you think i'm blinded by some "anti-American bias" when you have no freaking clue about me, then maybe this says more about you.

I'm here to discuss what I THINK. You're here to tell me that I'm this and that and the other. That's the difference.

No, you disagree with me and insist on judging people in the middle of a world war in the middle of the last century by modern standards.

THe second is indefensible.

Well hasn't your judging of me based on nothing much been fun? No, not really. I'm not really interested in a discussion like this which is baseless and just intent on blocking actual points being made.

Nothing in that last post was a personal judgement on you, it was a judgement on your actions.

You have been judging these WWII figures by modern standards, not those of the time.

You're calling me anti-American and saying I'm biased, and now you're saying it's all about judging WW2 people by today's standards.

I'd say that we SHOULD be judging those in the past by our standards. How else are you supposed to learn and move on.

If Washington was a great man who kept slaves, then can't great men today keep slaves too? No, we can say Washington was a man of his time, however we also need to look at Washington with our own eyes and make judgements based on our own thoughts, so that we can dictate how we should proceed as contemporary people.

 

[Correll]

I'm listening. I just wanted you to be clear before I responded.

The point I was trying to make was that your conclusion is self serving to your anti-american bias.


Much like the Gipper's serves his anti-government bias.

Your belief that you, as opposed to the rest of US, have "yours eyes open" is just your telling yourself that you are smarter and better than the rest of US.

Like I said, it is nice you have a good self image.

But it really doesn't do a thing to support your position.

Imo. my eyes are open and yours are blinded by your anti-american bias.

Thanks for enjoying.

Now, you might want to accuse me of having a pro-american bias.

The difference between us is that I am aware of my biases.

Unlike you, my eyes are ACTUALLY open.

At least compared to you.

Anti-American bias? Really? So I disagree with you, therefore I have "anti-American bias", oh give me a break.

Am I smarter than the rest of the US? Not necessarily, however many people have the heads stuck up the proverbial ass of the US govt's media machine. However you're claiming I'm biased for no reason other than you are trying to chip away at me. I'm sorry, but many people are biased because they simply accept that the US is right. Cowboys 'n' Injuns syndrome. Cowboys are the good guys, committing genocide, and the Injuns are the bad guys who are receiving genocide and the destruction of their way of life and the taking of their land.

The same. Whatever the US does it must be good because we're the US and we only do good things. The Iranians and Iraqis and Libyans and Syrians and ISIS and everyone must be bad because they're our enemies and we fight for good. It's black and white, nothing else.

However I'm not looking at good v. evil. I see evil v. evil.

But then if you think i'm blinded by some "anti-American bias" when you have no freaking clue about me, then maybe this says more about you.

I'm here to discuss what I THINK. You're here to tell me that I'm this and that and the other. That's the difference.

No, you disagree with me and insist on judging people in the middle of a world war in the middle of the last century by modern standards.

THe second is indefensible.

Well hasn't your judging of me based on nothing much been fun? No, not really. I'm not really interested in a discussion like this which is baseless and just intent on blocking actual points being made.

Nothing in that last post was a personal judgement on you, it was a judgement on your actions.

You have been judging these WWII figures by modern standards, not those of the time.

You're calling me anti-American and saying I'm biased, and now you're saying it's all about judging WW2 people by today's standards.

I'd say that we SHOULD be judging those in the past by our standards. How else are you supposed to learn and move on.

If Washington was a great man who kept slaves, then can't great men today keep slaves too? No, we can say Washington was a man of his time, however we also need to look at Washington with our own eyes and make judgements based on our own thoughts, so that we can dictate how we should proceed as contemporary people.

Both are true. You are anti-american, and you are judging those in the past by the standards of today.

Judging those in the past by the standards of today is the exact opposite of learning or moving forward.


George Washington was a great man. There is a lot to learn from him and his example.

If you cannot wrap your mind around the fact that he was a great man who owned slaves, then you will not be able to learn the lessons that are there.

If you insist on judging him by the standards of today, then you cannot see his greatness, and your understanding of history will be greatly limited.

DO you want to tear down his monument and remove his face from the Dollar Bill?

 

[regent]

Perhaps Washington's real scandal was Sally Fairfax.

 

[Correll]

Perhaps Washington's real scandal was Sally Fairfax.

Or not.

 

[there4eyeM]

So, if we critique Washington's performance at the Battle of the Brandywine and observe that he almost lost the entire Continental Army due to incompetence, are we anti-American, chronologically amiss with our military evaluations, 'slamming' America, or stating a fact?

 

[Correll]

So, if we critique Washington's performance at the Battle of the Brandywine and observe that he almost lost the entire Continental Army due to incompetence, are we anti-American, chronologically amiss with our military evaluations, 'slamming' America, or stating a fact?

Depends on the context.

In a military history class, or a small unit tactics class for military officers? Then probably stating a fact.

If it is in an unrelated general discussion where your goal is to just throw up a fact that paints a great man in a bad light, then you are "slamming America" and being Anti-american.

 

[there4eyeM]

Then, in a discussion related to the first use of atomic bombs in war, stating that there is valid argument against an invasion of a supine adversary and that incinerating a population that was not responsible for the acts of a military clique is wrong, is not anti-American and not chronologically reprehensible.

 

[prison/con.net]

we never had to invade Japan. that was all a lie. if we were REALLy so scared of stalin, why NOT nuke him, eh? Because, folks, we had no IDEA that we'd have an economic boom after WW2. We mostly thought that if the economy did not have a "war footing", the depression would return. so we "had" to have a boogeyman to justify spending a trillion $ a year on the military and keep everyone doing SOMETHING. Stalin was perfectly suited to playing boogey man. Khruschve and Breshnev, too. Ol' Gorbie let them down, so they had to create Saddam. WE set up saddamm. WE set up Castro (and Batista before him). WE set up the shah, and then Khomeni. it's been OUR interefering bs, ever since the Spanish American war, WW1, etc, that made things 10x worse than if we'd stayed out of it.

 

[prison/con.net]

the ruling class has ALWAYS hidden behind the masses. the masses have ALWAYS taken the fall for what their rulers do. If they don't like it, they need to kill those rulers FIRST and save us the hassle. If they don't do so, then they suffer the consequences, that's all. When you acquiese, instead of fighting for what's right, you deserve what happens to you. Everyone has had access to silenced, long distance, take down rifles since before WW1. ANYBODY can be whacked. Within the past 40 years,3 people have closed within pistol distance of the most protected man in the world,

 

[prison/con.net]

George W was a pos, apparently.

 

[Correll]

Then, in a discussion related to the first use of atomic bombs in war, stating that there is valid argument against an invasion of a supine adversary and that incinerating a population that was not responsible for the acts of a military clique is wrong, is not anti-American and not chronologically reprehensible.

That is a very low bar you have there. And not the one you were operating from earlier.

THe mere existence of a "valid argument against" is not the same as stating that

"It was not necessary for any rational or human reason."

If an act is taken that is " not necessary for any rational or human reason" then by definition it is an insane and inhuman act.

There was nothing "insane" about using a weapon that would led to a quick end to a bloody conflict. It is NOT reasonable to make such a claim. To make such a claim is to be "anti-American and chronologically reprehensible".


"Inhuman"? War is inhuman, total war more so. To judge the use of nuclear weapons as worthy of special condemnation in a war like WWII, with all the other inhumanity that occurred seems more driven by anti-americanism than any concern or interest in the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[Correll]

we never had to invade Japan. that was all a lie. if we were REALLy so scared of stalin, why NOT nuke him, eh? Because, folks, we had no IDEA that we'd have an economic boom after WW2. We mostly thought that if the economy did not have a "war footing", the depression would return. so we "had" to have a boogeyman to justify spending a trillion $ a year on the military and keep everyone doing SOMETHING. Stalin was perfectly suited to playing boogey man. Khruschve and Breshnev, too. Ol' Gorbie let them down, so they had to create Saddam. WE set up saddamm. WE set up Castro (and Batista before him). WE set up the shah, and then Khomeni. it's been OUR interefering bs, ever since the Spanish American war, WW1, etc, that made things 10x worse than if we'd stayed out of it.

The idea of NOT invading Japan, after Pearl Harbor and all the death and blood that followed would have been nearly unthinkable to the people of that time.

Nuclear weapons was just about the only way they were going to step out of that box.

Your classic myth that the Cold War was a reflection of internal politics and driving by the Military Industrial Complex was debunked by the massive drop in military spending after the end of the Cold War, with the cuts occurring under both republican and democratic presidents.

Your blame American first and only is nonsense.

 

[Unkotare]

By The Numbers The atomic bombing of Hiroshima Japan Today Japan News and Discussion



350,000: Population of Hiroshima before the bombing, of which 40,000 were military personnel.

___

140,000: Estimated death toll, including those who died from radiation-related injuries and illness through Dec. 31, 1945.

___

300,000: Total death toll to date, including those who have died from radiation-related cancers.

___

1.2 million: Population of Hiroshima today.

___

31,500: Height in feet (9,600 meters) from which the B-29 Enola Gay dropped the “Little Boy” bomb.

___

2,000: Height in feet (600 meters) at which the bomb exploded 43 seconds after it was dropped.

___

3,000-4,000: The estimated temperature in Celsius (5,400-7,200 Fahrenheit) at ground zero seconds after the detonation.

___

8,900: Approximate weight of the “Little Boy” bomb in pounds (about 4 metric tons).

___

1,600: Radius in feet (500 meters) from ground zero in which the entire population died that day.

___

90: Percent of Hiroshima that was destroyed.

___

45: Minutes after the 8:15 a.m. blast that a “black rain” of highly radioactive particles started falling.

___

3-6: Weeks after the bombing during which most of the victims with severe radiation symptoms died.

___

10 million: Origami (folded paper) cranes that decorate the Children’s Peace Monument in Hiroshima each year.

___

 

[JoeB131]

Your assumption that the Japanese would fall easily reminds me of Hitler's confidence with the RUssians.

No my confidence was based on what the tactical situation was like at the time.

in Manchuria, the Kwantung Army was rolled up by the soviets in less than a week. They met stiff resistance on the southern half of Sakhalin (the Island that was to the North of Japan, the USSR owned half of it, and Japan the other half). but they overran it within two weeks.

The northern Island of Hokkaido was only guarded by 2 divisions. They were deployed along the eastern coast to repel an American invasion, and would have been caught completely off guard had the Soviets landed in the North or West.

In short, Japans leaders didn't care about the Bomb, the the thought of facing a rape-happy Red Army of a hundred divisions really did scare the pants off of them.

 

[Correll]

Your assumption that the Japanese would fall easily reminds me of Hitler's confidence with the RUssians.

No my confidence was based on what the tactical situation was like at the time.

in Manchuria, the Kwantung Army was rolled up by the soviets in less than a week. They met stiff resistance on the southern half of Sakhalin (the Island that was to the North of Japan, the USSR owned half of it, and Japan the other half). but they overran it within two weeks.

The northern Island of Hokkaido was only guarded by 2 divisions. They were deployed along the eastern coast to repel an American invasion, and would have been caught completely off guard had the Soviets landed in the North or West.

In short, Japans leaders didn't care about the Bomb, the the thought of facing a rape-happy Red Army of a hundred divisions really did scare the pants off of them.

Yep. Just kick in the door, and the whole house of cards would have come tumbling down, right?

Have the Soviets EVER done a significant amphibious landing?

 

[JoeB131]

Yep. Just kick in the door, and the whole house of cards would have come tumbling down, right?

Have the Soviets EVER done a significant amphibious landing?

The thing was, the Soviets didn't even have to kick down the door. the Japanese SURRENDERED just because they entered the war.

The way they mopped up the Kwantung Army, which was better armed than Japanese home army, is a pretty good indication of how poorly they'd have faired.

That was the thing. The Russians were in Korea in AUGUST 1945. We weren't even going to be ready for an invasion of the southernmost island until November, 1945.

 

[Unkotare]

Japan was subdued. No further ground action on any large scale was needed. As with many other aspects of WWII, mistakes in strategy and goals lead to terrible losses without proportionate gain. Propaganda still insists on a version that puts Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a light that spares the US.

.

 

[Unkotare]

Fortunately FDR was dead before the hard decision had be made. Had he lived we might all be bowing toward Mt. Fuji five times a day.

??????

 

[Unkotare]

Some assume the Japanese were like the Nazi or other European nations, when it was clear they could not win they would surrender. That was not true of the Japanese, the Japanese knew, as has been suggested, they could not win the war, but did believe America would tire of the casualties and arrange some type of peace where Japan would end up with territory that had her needed raw materials. With the Japanese philosophy of nation over death she would make every island, every inch of territory so costly in American casualties we would negotiate, and as we neared the mainland of Japan, Japan's resistance stiffened, hence the Iwo's and Okinawa's. We will never know how long Japan would have fought on, or how many more Americans would have died but we were given a choice, and we took it.
Thank you America

THAT is revisionist history.