The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: dutch508 on August 07, 2008, 05:22:41 PM
-
Parche (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 07:02 PM
Original message http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3741870
Hiroshima, What Would You Have Done If You Did Not Drop The Atomic Bomb
Advertisements [?]Would you have left Admiral Halsey and the 3rd fleet surrounding Japan, and keep bombing them with conventional bombs?
Would you ignore the fact that our POW's were dying every day?
Would you have invaded Japan proper, and risked millions of lives in the process?
Would you have protected the fleet from the kamikaze's the best you could?
Would you mourn the loss of Chinese and Korean civilians being brutalized from Japanese retribution?
Would you care that thousands of Japanese military were dying of starvation every day on Pacific Islands that we had surrounded and left them to 'Wither on the vine'
This should go well...
Name removed (0 posts) Wed Aug-06-08 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
It starts off strongly..
.CTyankee (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-07-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
105. I was 4 years old when those bombs were dropped. I had nightmares and was
very frightened. My mother did something interesting: she told me to put aside 30 minutes a day to do nothing but worry about the Atomic bomb and then not think about it the rest of the day. Of course, I didn't make it to more than about 2 minutes of "worrying." Funny, I stopped worrying about it after that. She was wise. She didn't dismiss my fear but she made it inoperative.
Uh...what?
godai (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
13. Sounds to me that you are trying to justify widespread killing of civilians
To me, the bottom line is that there are rules even in war and Hiroshima and Nagasaki violated those rules as did the even worse firebombing of nearly all Japanese cities. But, we won, so, no problem, right?
Paint It Black (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #13
23. Don't forget the firebombing of Dresden
And other German cities.
Yet the war crimes committed by the United States are okay because we won.
Sequoia (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. A beautiful city destroyed, yet don't even think about bombing
those camps that killed 6 million Jews/Gypsies/Gay's/Liberals/Cripples or tearing up the train tracks that took them to their death.
Of course, by the time the A-Bomb was operational for deployment, the war in Europe was winding down to the point where the list of targets was Berlin. So, sequoia would have had us nuke Aushwitz?
Leopolds Ghost (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-07-08 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #114
121. That would have been an interesting question wouldn't it? Why couldn't Japan have nuked Honolulu?
Parche?
The fact they didn't have a A-bomb stopped them. Would they have if they did have one? Without doubt. It would have destroyed the entire pacific fleet and the naval station at Pearl. Exactly what they were trying to do on Dec 7th, 1941.
Tierra_y_Libertad (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
36. Backed off. Negotiated a truce. And, let the military power crumble.
Japan was defeated. There was no military justification for slaughtering 200,000 civilians. It was a political act to satisfy the American people and frighten the Russians.
There is the plan for the War on terror that the liberals want now.
unkachuck (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
41. how about....
....a public demonstration of the awesome might of the new atomic weapon we had with an implied warning that we would be prepared to use it if the war did not end?
chuck knows about the the media available in 1945, right?
lynyrd_skynyrd (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 10:55 PM
Response to Original message
45. I'm so tired of this idiotic justification
Here's what I would not have done.
I would not have indiscriminately murdered millions of innocent civilians.
what are these millions lenny is speaking of? Iraqis?
kenzee13 (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-07-08 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
80. So our war crimes, our crimes against humanity, are justified because
the other side was committing war crimes and crimes against humanity? Because that's what your arguement boils down to.
As for your demands that people come up with an alternate scenario, you know perfectly well that there are reams written about this.
John Pilger says all that needs to be said about this in a few short paragraphs.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/06/10835 /
The Lies of Hiroshima Live On, Props in the War Crimes of the 20th Century
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a criminal act on an epic scale. It was premeditated mass murder ...
“Even without the atomic bombing attacks,†concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, “air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion. 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 … 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.â€
...The National Archives in Washington contain US government documents that chart Japanese peace overtures as early as 1943. None was pursued. A cable sent on May 5, 1945 by the German ambassador in Tokyo and intercepted by the US dispels any doubt that the Japanese were desperate to sue for peace, including “capitulation even if the terms were hardâ€. Instead, the US secretary of war, Henry Stimson, told President Truman he was “fearful†that the US air force would have Japan so “bombed out†that the new weapon would not be able “to show its strengthâ€. He later admitted that “no effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bombâ€... General Leslie Groves, director of the Manhattan Project that made the bomb, testified: “There was never any illusion on my part that Russia was our enemy, and that the project was conducted on that basis.â€
The continued justifications for the slaughter of infants and children in the name of "peace" goes on. If US soldiers had gone into Japan and thrown infants in a heap, doused them with gasoline, and burned them alive would that be a war crime? And if it would be, what is different about doing it from the air?
American exceptionalism at its most Orwellian.
When did the left first start hating America? Was it in 1968? Was it in 1863?
Leopolds Ghost (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-07-08 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #126
127. And if the Blue Dogs don't accept Chomsky, read Beschloss. All this is "Even so-and-so believes..."
When did DU get so conservative?
When Obama voted for FISA and freepers saw a wedge issue
they could exploit by defending the newly conservative
direction taken by our party "leaders"?
Seems to me that is an explanation for these sort of
"popcorn posts".
Is there a name for that sort of thing?
I believe it is called "Even so-and-so" trolling.
As in:
"Even Hillary Clinton believes Iran is a threat."
"Even Obama acknowledges some warrantless spying is necessary."
(by DUer on FR) "Even McCain believes in global warming, so I do too."
"Even I believe it was necessary to nuke Hiroshima."
"And I'm not just saying this because we might go to
war with Iran using nukes... why isn't this an issue
on the table?"
Another good name for it might be "popcorn" trolling.
A lesser infarction than concern trolling since the
people doing it probably have legitimate viewpoints
on the issue that are at odds with others in thair party.
It is sort of the opposite and reverse of "concern".
The OP makes many legitimate arguments but I have to
wonder if some of the respondents arent engaged in a
gentle form of popcorn trolling to get a rise out of
people who disagree about a controversial issue.
"Even I, a Radical Leftist, agree Hiroshima was necessary!"
Another name for the "popcorn trolling" or "Even so and so" argument/fallacy
might be Appeal to Unconventional Authority.
So-called because the basic idea is that if someone
you would not expect, such as a DUer, believes
we should have dropped more bombs on Japan, then
his opinion somehow carries more weight because of the
person saying it being someone you would not expect,
a voice in the wilderness somehow, on an otherwise
liberal blog.
A classic fallacy that such opinions carry more weight.
Appeal to Unconventional Wisdom/Authority.
Like T. Boone Pickens.
-
DU = I hate America.
-
unkachuck (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
41. how about....
....a public demonstration of the awesome might of the new atomic weapon we had with an implied warning that we would be prepared to use it if the war did not end?
Look you mind-numb moron, we DID demonstrate our might and we DID warn them beforehand. We told their dumbasses that we had a special weapon. Even after the FIRST damn bomb was dropped, they had the chance to surrender. They refused, so we dropped a SECOND bomb. It was ONLY when we said we had a THIRD, which I don't think existed, and that Tokyo was a target, did they surrender. Oh, and Kyoto? It was on the target list but was ruled out BECAUSE it was considered a "holy place" and we were still humane, even in a time of war.
You ****tards need to go ahead and pack your bags for Venezuela. You are NOT Americans, you stupid pricks. :censored:
-
unkachuck (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-06-08 10:31 PM
Response to Original message
41. how about....
....a public demonstration of the awesome might of the new atomic weapon we had with an implied warning that we would be prepared to use it if the war did not end?
Look you mind-numb moron, we DID demonstrate our might and we DID warn them beforehand. We told their dumbasses that we had a special weapon. Even after the FIRST damn bomb was dropped, they had the chance to surrender. They refused, so we dropped a SECOND bomb. It was ONLY when we said we had a THIRD, which I don't think existed, and that Tokyo was a target, did they surrender. Oh, and Kyoto? It was on the target list but was ruled out BECAUSE it was considered a "holy place" and we were still humane, even in a time of war.
You ****tards need to go ahead and pack your bags for Venezuela. You are NOT Americans, you stupid pricks. :censored:
The 3rd did exist, and we where manufacturing enough of them to drop one on them every week for the next 3 months.
-
By all accounts I have read and heard death was more honorable then surrender to the Japanese.
Not sure how that played out among the population but at least among the military.
They would have never surrendered until the last able body in the country had been killed if it had been a long ground battle.
The bombs showed them that was what was coming and fast enough they took notice.
-
CTyankee (1000+ posts) Thu Aug-07-08 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #7
105. I was 4 years old when those bombs were dropped. I had nightmares and was
very frightened. My mother did something interesting: she told me to put aside 30 minutes a day to do nothing but worry about the Atomic bomb and then not think about it the rest of the day. Of course, I didn't make it to more than about 2 minutes of "worrying." Funny, I stopped worrying about it after that. She was wise. She didn't dismiss my fear but she made it inoperative
.
:orly: :tinfoil: :baby: :loser2: :bs2flag: :old: :bs:
:rofl:
-
Saint Etienne17 (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug-07-08 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
110. I would have only used one bomb
Although this question is really, really tough, and it really isn't just of me to judge it 60 years later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Japan did not surrender after just one bomb. It took another one and the threat of a third, idiot. :loser:
MicaelS (282 posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug-07-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #109
112. The point in bringing them up is...
Because people want to pretend, and yes I meant that word and all it implies, that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the greatest crimes of WWII, way out of proportion to the destruction of any other city or cities, that's why. That somehow the Japanese were innocent victims of US atrocities.
And the real simple answer whole debate is this: If Japan hadn't started the war in '37 with the invasion of China, they wouldn't have gotten nuked eight years later.
To put it in more street slang "Don't start none, won't be none."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
That poster wont last long in the hive.
-
By all accounts I have read and heard death was more honorable then surrender to the Japanese.
Not sure how that played out among the population but at least among the military.
They would have never surrendered until the last able body in the country had been killed if it had been a long ground battle.
The bombs showed them that was what was coming and fast enough they took notice.
Bushido is a code that today even still holds some sway over the general populace (the newest generation of adults, not so much). Back then, it was still a way of life for them. It hadn't even been a full 60 years since they'd left behind the swords and bows as a way of battle.
If they had the means to resist, they would have. Death in battle was an extremely honorable thing to them. Would the cost of invading the homeland been devestating to our forces? Yes. Hundreds of thousands of casualties would have been incurred taking Kyushu and the Kanto Plain. But millions of Japanese would have given their lives. They where ready to fight themselves into extinction as a race, as long as they had gone to an honorable death.
The atomic weapons are probably the reason Japan still is autonomous today. If we had been forced to take the island one mile at a time, the society would have been devestated, the people slaughtered, but we showed them we had the means to take their lives without spending a single one of ours.
There was no honor in that, and that is finally what got them to break and give in. I don't care how much the dump monkeys wail about it. Dropping those bombs where the most humane thing we could have done. Anyone who understands Japanese culture would know that.
-
By all accounts I have read and heard death was more honorable then surrender to the Japanese.
Not sure how that played out among the population but at least among the military.
They would have never surrendered until the last able body in the country had been killed if it had been a long ground battle.
The bombs showed them that was what was coming and fast enough they took notice.
I've been inside the bunkers of Okinawa, the walls were riddled with shrapnel holes. I'd be freaking pissed if I lived on a stinking island for years and some jackass officer called formation in a cave only to frag everybody instead of fighting.
-
I've been inside the bunkers of Okinawa, the walls were riddled with shrapnel holes. I'd be freaking pissed if I lived on a stinking island for years and some jackass officer called formation in a cave only to frag everybody instead of fighting.
Well, you wouldn't be pissed for long. :-)
-
I've been inside the bunkers of Okinawa, the walls were riddled with shrapnel holes. I'd be freaking pissed if I lived on a stinking island for years and some jackass officer called formation in a cave only to frag everybody instead of fighting.
Well, you wouldn't be pissed for long. :-)
true
-
Truman could have ordered one dropped on Tokyo.
-
When I was a child my mother told me that I should never "hate" any one. I could dislike them or even hate their ways, but I shouldn't hate the individual. My mother didn't know about the DUmmies. I'll be seeing her tomorrow. I intend to explain the DUmmies to her and get an up-to-date clarification.
-
Continued the massive fire bombings that actually killed many more japs.
-
The depth of historical ignorance under which they labor is so great that the question defies honest response. The war in Europe was over months before the first bomb was ready, and indeed we bombed the living shit out of the German rail network, every railyard bigger than a siding had been bombed (and continued to be bombed as soon as it was repaired) and despite superhuman efforts to keep the trains running, at least 10% of even the cross-country trackage was unusable on any given day by the end.
The idea that bombing cities was a war crime is strictly a post-war one, and exists thanks to our ability to use PGMs to take out more-defined targets. In WWII, there were several military and practical reasons why we bombed entire cities (dealing with both the limitations of the available ordnance and its delivery systems, as well as the decentralization of manufacturing into piecework in home workshops in Japan, and the idea that the civilian housing was where the off-shift factory workers could be most readily killed in the case of Germany), unsavory as it is may be by modern standards WHICH DID NOT APPLY THEN. Even more importantly, though, both the Japanese and the Germans bought a ticket on that Hell-train when they were on the offensive in the first two years of the War, and clearly had no reservations about mercilessly bombing civilian populations to the limit of their capabilities when the ass-kicking boot was on the other foot.
-
The depth of historical ignorance under which they labor is so great that the question defies honest response. The war in Europe was over months before the first bomb was ready, and indeed we bombed the living shit out of the German rail network, every railyard bigger than a siding had been bombed (and continued to be bombed as soon as it was repaired) and despite superhuman efforts to keep the trains running, at least 10% of even the cross-country trackage was unusable on any given day by the end.
The idea that bombing cities was a war crime is strictly a post-war one, and exists thanks to our ability to use PGMs to take out more-defined targets. In WWII, there were several military and practical reasons why we bombed entire cities (dealing with both the limitations of the available ordnance and its delivery systems, as well as the decentralization of manufacturing into piecework in home workshops in Japan, and the idea that the civilian housing was where the off-shift factory workers could be most readily killed in the case of Germany), unsavory as it is may be by modern standards WHICH DID NOT APPLY THEN. Even more importantly, though, both the Japanese and the Germans bought a ticket on that Hell-train when they were on the offensive in the first two years of the War, and clearly had no reservations about mercilessly bombing civilian populations to the limit of their capabilities when the ass-kicking boot was on the other foot.
Agreed....perhaps the DUmmies should ask the Brits what they thought about the "Blitz"........
doc
-
The depth of historical ignorance under which they labor is so great that the question defies honest response. The war in Europe was over months before the first bomb was ready, and indeed we bombed the living shit out of the German rail network, every railyard bigger than a siding had been bombed (and continued to be bombed as soon as it was repaired) and despite superhuman efforts to keep the trains running, at least 10% of even the cross-country trackage was unusable on any given day by the end.
The idea that bombing cities was a war crime is strictly a post-war one, and exists thanks to our ability to use PGMs to take out more-defined targets. In WWII, there were several military and practical reasons why we bombed entire cities (dealing with both the limitations of the available ordnance and its delivery systems, as well as the decentralization of manufacturing into piecework in home workshops in Japan, and the idea that the civilian housing was where the off-shift factory workers could be most readily killed in the case of Germany), unsavory as it is may be by modern standards WHICH DID NOT APPLY THEN. Even more importantly, though, both the Japanese and the Germans bought a ticket on that Hell-train when they were on the offensive in the first two years of the War, and clearly had no reservations about mercilessly bombing civilian populations to the limit of their capabilities when the ass-kicking boot was on the other foot.
Agreed....perhaps the DUmmies should ask the Brits what they thought about the "Blitz"........
doc
Ask the citizens of Coventry,London,Singapore,Manila,Korea,Minsk, Kiev,Warsaw,Nanking, Vienna,...........and a thousand other places