- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
- Messages
- 5,921
- Reaction score
- 11,642
It was also a lesson to all of mankind of the destruction we're capable of unleashing on each other.
I mean, the Somme was only 30 years earlier.
It was also a lesson to all of mankind of the destruction we're capable of unleashing on each other.
Well, yeah but even that paled in comparison to what a nuke can do.I mean, the Somme was only 30 years earlier.
What we did to the Japanese was absolutely unacceptable and unnecessary.The argument that Japan didn't deserve to be nuked has always been silly. They are the fuck around and find out champions of the world and they earned it. This wasn't some military action like Vietnam where we maybe didn't need to be at war at all ....this was a war with global consequences.
Any of you bozos ever stop to think the reason Russia and the USA didn't go hot is because we actually had an idea of what an abomb war would look like and that those 2 bombs might have saved more lives than it's possible to calculate? Every single person on this planet might owe their existence to 2 bombs in 1945. It's kind a big historical what if.
And even then they weren't ready to give any unconditional surrender.Even if defeat wasn't yet complete, defeat was a certainty over a matter of time.
I promise you that you were not/are not/will never be Commanding General Hindsight.Firebombs were more effective immediately.
Go to Korea (north or south), Philippines, Australia, Indonesia, or China and ask a whole bunch of them if they agree with you.The use of nukes was an unnecessary show of force.
See above sentence.The fact it was used against civilians is more disgusting.
eeeehhh, you aren't gonna bait me into this sissy nonsesnse.The fact we had it and didn't use it against Germany shows how we knew it could do generational harm and avoided using it in Europe.
Apparently, European lives are more important.
The scientists warned the government before they were used. It was an obvious outcome.This is extra true when you realize that when the decision to use the bomb was made, they didn’t fully understand the impact it would have. We know about things like the fallout and radiation burns because they were used. It’s Monday morning quarterbacking after learning the rules.
Well… I don’t think the Chinese would be one of those that disagrees with our decision though.
What we did to the Japanese was absolutely unacceptable and unnecessary.
It hopefully will never happen again to anyone.
The nuking of Japan was never necessary.
In a military conflict, you are supposed to use the minimum means to end a war or conflict.
What we did was insane overkill. I'm not proud. My goal is to, however I can, make people here see the truth so that or government eventually makes better decisions with regards to foreign policy.
That's like saying that the Civil War was about states rights. The main reason for hastening a war's end is reducing casualties, followed by doing it before the war becomes too unpopular.Reducing US military casualties wasn't the primary political consideration of the US planners though. Judged on the basis of their own decision making records.
The primary consideration was the degree to which it would speed up the conclusion of the war, with the reductions of casualties a corollary of that.
Yes, most of these folks who claim to have dissented only did so much later and likely weren't opposed at the time. Certainly not enough to speak up.Despite relative ignorance of Japanese discussions, there were already dissenters within the bodies responsible that thought the bombing unnecessary, even from the perspective of forcing immediate surrender. Including Ralph Bard. Although most only made public objections after the fact.
I agree with you on the first second, second sentence is less clear. Japan had already absorbed massive military losses, and again, the surrender almost got derailed by multiple coup attempts. We're talking extremely fine margins here, much too fine to expect of decisionmakers at that time. You're attributing margins and information to people who simply didn't have those things in 1945.There's no legitimate argument that the decision to nuke the Japanese civilians was about saving Japanese lives. However in terms of hypothetical scenarios, it's no less probable that nuking actual military targets instead of civilian targets would have prompted surrender. It's a false dichotomy to suggest it was only a choice of indiscriminately targeting civilians for nuclear terror bombing, or an invasion.
He should have been strung up and was a direct player in the war effort, even if he wasn't a supreme leader or anything like that.The Emperor didn’t really have the power to surrender on his own, nor do I think he really knew what was going on. I read about it years ago, but basically the war cabinet that ran the country was split on surrendering or fighting to the death after the bombs were dropped and the ones that wanted to surrender pulled some shenanigans using the emperor to get it done.
Even after the surrender was made the messaging that was broadcast out was confusing. The Japanese soldiers on the front didn’t understand it and a lot of them thought they were supposed to keep fighting.
Obviously a lot easier to cast judgements in 2024 when no one has legitimate skin in the game. We do know one thing, the bombs ended the war immediately. I can assume another, if Thurman doesn’t use the bombs his political career is absolutely over. A final assumption, none of those people who eventually disagreed with the use of nukes did not celebrate the end of the war. Take it as you want but your hindsight judgment of history is bullshit.
What casualty estimate do you consider credible for Downfall? Allied and Japanese casualties to be clear.Would you really argue that indiscriminately using weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations is ethically justified by hypothetically averting the exaggerated estimates of casualties of an invasion? A number which grew as the years passed after the event and never featured in the original decision?
That's like saying that the Civil War was about states rights. The main reason for hastening a war's end is reducing casualties, followed by doing it before the war becomes too unpopular.
Yes, most of these folks who claim to have dissented only did so much later and likely weren't opposed at the time. Certainly not enough to speak up.
I agree with you on the first second, second sentence is less clear. Japan had already absorbed massive military losses, and again, the surrender almost got derailed by multiple coup attempts. We're talking extremely fine margins here, much too fine to expect of decisionmakers at that time. You're attributing margins and information to people who simply didn't have those things in 1945.
As I mentioned I think it saved Japanese lives, but unintentionally.
What casualty estimate do you consider credible for Downfall? Allied and Japanese casualties to be clear.
Do you think there was a different precedent at the time regarding indiscriminate attacks? The Brit’s did night raids for years, Germans bombing London, firing bombings, genocide, starvation, mass executions, the Japanese were so awful in a city they conquered it’s called a rape. So, collectively it seems there was not as much care to protect civilians at this point. How many tens of millions were already dead by ‘45? You speak like allied death estimates were in the teens; there’s still minimum 100,000 allied casualties from even the low end, how many Japanese die as well?You can't really dismiss the objections of Ralph Bard, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy or McCloy as people "without skin in the game" or because they also wanted an end to the war.
However, unless you are enamoured with national myths, you should be able to clearly see from the written evidence that the statements about Hiroshima as a military target, the targets being selected to "avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians", the justifications with ever inflated casualty estimates and the lies to congress about the nature and effect of radioactive fallout were all bullshit.
Not just in hindsight. With the declassification of records, their own previously written words reveal that they knew better.
Would you really argue that indiscriminately using weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations is ethically justified by hypothetically averting the exaggerated estimates of casualties of an invasion? A number which grew as the years passed after the event and never featured in the original decision?
That is actually just untrue. They understood the blast itself when they used it but the effects of the fallout were discovered during investigations after the eventThe scientists warned the government before they were used. It was an obvious outcome.
We knew before we did it.
If Hiroshima is responsible for that blurred area in Japanese porn, then it was a mistake.