Nukes, were they justified...
-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
-
Cezarprimo
- Member
- Posts: 121
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 10:28
Alternatives
Ron Birch, typical case of sound indoctrination by means of unshameful propaganda 
"Save the lives of the american soldaires" and another one that I like best "nuke the japanese to save them of starvation and a war waged on their own territory !!!!!!" this is like 'I kill you for your own good"
If everything was about saving american GI's than why didn't the americans let the russians finish the japanese off ? As it has been shown in the previous years of war, the russians were not so carefull with the lives of their own soldaires... Oh, but this doesn't make any sense, the americans wanted to save russian lives also, they were not thinking about not leting the russains extend their influence in Asia, they were not thinking about reaching a predominant position on the world's political stage, no, life is everything that matters for the american hero
Are you lliving by any chance in Hollywood ?
The americans dropped the bombs out of geopolitical reasons. They were looking to impress the rest of the world, to show everybody who was watching that they are the best. They were searching to export their political system to find new markets for their economy exactly as the russians.
Were the boombs justified ?
For the americans - by all means.
To end the war - no way, the war would have ended the same way without the bombs.
For the japenese - give me a breake...
From the humanitarian point of wiew they were a crime, but I belive that they saved all of us another war and in a way helped us get rid of communism also
I belive in seeing the truth as it is and living with it once it is established.
Regards
"Save the lives of the american soldaires" and another one that I like best "nuke the japanese to save them of starvation and a war waged on their own territory !!!!!!" this is like 'I kill you for your own good"
If everything was about saving american GI's than why didn't the americans let the russians finish the japanese off ? As it has been shown in the previous years of war, the russians were not so carefull with the lives of their own soldaires... Oh, but this doesn't make any sense, the americans wanted to save russian lives also, they were not thinking about not leting the russains extend their influence in Asia, they were not thinking about reaching a predominant position on the world's political stage, no, life is everything that matters for the american hero
Are you lliving by any chance in Hollywood ?
The americans dropped the bombs out of geopolitical reasons. They were looking to impress the rest of the world, to show everybody who was watching that they are the best. They were searching to export their political system to find new markets for their economy exactly as the russians.
Were the boombs justified ?
For the americans - by all means.
To end the war - no way, the war would have ended the same way without the bombs.
For the japenese - give me a breake...
From the humanitarian point of wiew they were a crime, but I belive that they saved all of us another war and in a way helped us get rid of communism also
I belive in seeing the truth as it is and living with it once it is established.
Regards
-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
CezarPrimo......or is it obewan.........maybe.....could be yoda.....no must be Luke you don't understand the force yet.
Just to be sure on the comments I never said:
Better than starving
We wouldn't have won without the bomb
Save Russian lives
Or that it was even for the Japanese benefit
Those are all points I see you have made to argue with yourself.
The bombing of cities is nothing new in 1945 with way more loss of life in Tokyo....mmmmm....but nobody seems to have a problem with that, wonder why?
It is WAR and you use the best weapons available. Really some people have a hard time understanding this, faced with the option of large amounts of Allied casualties, it was the better option.
Ahhh.....but the politics of it, did they want to show the Russians what they had, even though they were told. Well I'm sure that came up in the White House along with the domestic points of view. And when the bomb was used I'm sure Stalin had some second thought on ideas he had.
From a humanitarian point of view it was a crime?
From a humanitarian point of view WAR is a crime, please don't pick and choose what part of it is!
We don't celebrate the dropping of either bomb, but do celebrate the end of the war. On which some of the posts I have read I believe some may think we celebrate the former.
But there is a question I usually pose to those less enlighted posters that I do enjoy asking........As Comander in Chief what would you do?
Just to be sure on the comments I never said:
Better than starving
We wouldn't have won without the bomb
Save Russian lives
Or that it was even for the Japanese benefit
Those are all points I see you have made to argue with yourself.
The bombing of cities is nothing new in 1945 with way more loss of life in Tokyo....mmmmm....but nobody seems to have a problem with that, wonder why?
It is WAR and you use the best weapons available. Really some people have a hard time understanding this, faced with the option of large amounts of Allied casualties, it was the better option.
Ahhh.....but the politics of it, did they want to show the Russians what they had, even though they were told. Well I'm sure that came up in the White House along with the domestic points of view. And when the bomb was used I'm sure Stalin had some second thought on ideas he had.
From a humanitarian point of view it was a crime?
From a humanitarian point of view WAR is a crime, please don't pick and choose what part of it is!
We don't celebrate the dropping of either bomb, but do celebrate the end of the war. On which some of the posts I have read I believe some may think we celebrate the former.
But there is a question I usually pose to those less enlighted posters that I do enjoy asking........As Comander in Chief what would you do?
-
Huckebein
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 04 Apr 2002 09:47
Ron Birch,
You really don't want to see the arguments in a discussion. I will repeat what Cezarprimo just said. The americans were not confronted with prospect of huge losses because the russians were ready to enter in war with Japan. So if they were not willing to complete the job they could let the russians to do it. Anyway, by that time the Emperor already decided to surrender to the americans, because of the danger of being defeated by the russians.
The dropping of A-bombs in Japan as a warning for the russians can also be put in question. Stalin wasn't impressed at all by A-bomb, he just strengthen his demands regarding Eastern Europe after the dropping. You cannot foul the military analists with the effect of A-bombs of the day against troups. Its impossible to find in a war 100.000 troups close together to drop the bomb on them. How many troups were killed in the bombing? And how many bombs were left? Of course retorical questions. The A-bomb was an excellent propaganda weapon against civilians. But this was clearly not enough to convince Stalin of its strategic value (for year '45).
You really don't want to see the arguments in a discussion. I will repeat what Cezarprimo just said. The americans were not confronted with prospect of huge losses because the russians were ready to enter in war with Japan. So if they were not willing to complete the job they could let the russians to do it. Anyway, by that time the Emperor already decided to surrender to the americans, because of the danger of being defeated by the russians.
The dropping of A-bombs in Japan as a warning for the russians can also be put in question. Stalin wasn't impressed at all by A-bomb, he just strengthen his demands regarding Eastern Europe after the dropping. You cannot foul the military analists with the effect of A-bombs of the day against troups. Its impossible to find in a war 100.000 troups close together to drop the bomb on them. How many troups were killed in the bombing? And how many bombs were left? Of course retorical questions. The A-bomb was an excellent propaganda weapon against civilians. But this was clearly not enough to convince Stalin of its strategic value (for year '45).
Last edited by Huckebein on 13 May 2002 13:25, edited 2 times in total.
-
Cezarprimo
- Member
- Posts: 121
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 10:28
Ron Birch, there is only one comment addressed to you in my post, and that is the first phrase.
About the rest, I've listed what american propaganda and its' minions (among which you surely are) have to say to the subject. Thus, indirectly, the question "Are you living in Hollywood?" is also addresd to you.
But, who knows maybe you think all the posts here are addressed to you personaly, why don't you answer to all of them...?
Have you never heard of war crimes ? This comes as a surprise to me, the american propaganda yells for half a century about how the war criminals have to end (except of courese for the american ones).
And to answer your question, oh you enlighted one, if was to be the american Comander in Chief, I would have dropped the bomb, but I wolud have never tried to make it look other than a hideuos crime commited for the benefit of my own people.
In the end is all about hypocrisy...
As for the rest, it is obvious the force is with you, say hello to Yoda when you see him
To Huckebein :
To be more clear, the bombs wouldn't have been used against troops, but against cities and industrialized areas, the troops can not fight without weapons, and you are severly demoralized seeing that your fighting can not protect your familiy back home.
As for the message, I didn't say it was ment for the russians but for everyone there with ears to hear it. Look at the way the russians handeled the Korea war, to see that they've got the message.
And the russians did enter the war against Japan in 1945.
Regards
About the rest, I've listed what american propaganda and its' minions (among which you surely are) have to say to the subject. Thus, indirectly, the question "Are you living in Hollywood?" is also addresd to you.
But, who knows maybe you think all the posts here are addressed to you personaly, why don't you answer to all of them...?
From a humanitarian point of view it was a crime?
From a humanitarian point of view WAR is a crime, please don't pick and choose what part of it is!
Have you never heard of war crimes ? This comes as a surprise to me, the american propaganda yells for half a century about how the war criminals have to end (except of courese for the american ones).
And to answer your question, oh you enlighted one, if was to be the american Comander in Chief, I would have dropped the bomb, but I wolud have never tried to make it look other than a hideuos crime commited for the benefit of my own people.
In the end is all about hypocrisy...
As for the rest, it is obvious the force is with you, say hello to Yoda when you see him
To Huckebein :
To be more clear, the bombs wouldn't have been used against troops, but against cities and industrialized areas, the troops can not fight without weapons, and you are severly demoralized seeing that your fighting can not protect your familiy back home.
As for the message, I didn't say it was ment for the russians but for everyone there with ears to hear it. Look at the way the russians handeled the Korea war, to see that they've got the message.
And the russians did enter the war against Japan in 1945.
Regards
Last edited by Cezarprimo on 13 May 2002 16:29, edited 2 times in total.
-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
Huckebein,
I have no problem reading other points of view or even understanding why the view is held. Your belief is they were not confronted with hight casualties and mine is they were but more important at the time that was the thought. As far as Japan surrendering because of the Russians, no the bomb had more leverage in putting that to practice. As you have seen I answered this in a civil manner as the points were brought to me that way. I have had a few sharp posts but if you read the ones before mine I would think you could understand why.
CesarPrimo,
Well I see I must have hit a nerve, if you did not wish to address the whole post to me, separate it like this one. But with all the ranting you were doing I could see how you got lost. Where are you from? As it looks like your education comes from the Al Jazeera History channell, or is it Cartoon Network because it really is hard to tell. " War Crimes", yes I know what they are and all nations have commited them at one time or another including the US. And since I am trying to be civil here I will leave it at this and choose not to get into a war of "wits" with an unarmed man
I have no problem reading other points of view or even understanding why the view is held. Your belief is they were not confronted with hight casualties and mine is they were but more important at the time that was the thought. As far as Japan surrendering because of the Russians, no the bomb had more leverage in putting that to practice. As you have seen I answered this in a civil manner as the points were brought to me that way. I have had a few sharp posts but if you read the ones before mine I would think you could understand why.
CesarPrimo,
Well I see I must have hit a nerve, if you did not wish to address the whole post to me, separate it like this one. But with all the ranting you were doing I could see how you got lost. Where are you from? As it looks like your education comes from the Al Jazeera History channell, or is it Cartoon Network because it really is hard to tell. " War Crimes", yes I know what they are and all nations have commited them at one time or another including the US. And since I am trying to be civil here I will leave it at this and choose not to get into a war of "wits" with an unarmed man
-
Andy H
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 15321
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
- Location: UK and USA
-
Huckebein
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 04 Apr 2002 09:47
-
Cezarprimo
- Member
- Posts: 121
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 10:28
To Ron Birch,
About separating the post, I stand corrected, at that time I did not know that you are a pupil of Yoda in the way of the force
I fail to see the connection to Al Jazeera, but yet again, I'm not so strong in the force as you are. As for Cartoon Network here you've got me, I do watch Cartoon Network and as it seems that everything that does not obey your wiews of the histrory comes from Cartoon Network I'm proud to recognize it.
Now, about not getting
And speaking of a war of "wits", better unarmed than armed like you
I'm sorry about this little digression, but Mr. Ron Birch provoked me, I promise not to answer to this kind of rethoric any more.
And now comming back to the topic :
Cheshire Yeomanry, please develop a little bit your question as to what does "allied command" means ? Do you implie that the russains were also part of this "allied command" and had a faire share of influence in the decisions to be made ?
Regards
About separating the post, I stand corrected, at that time I did not know that you are a pupil of Yoda in the way of the force
I fail to see the connection to Al Jazeera, but yet again, I'm not so strong in the force as you are. As for Cartoon Network here you've got me, I do watch Cartoon Network and as it seems that everything that does not obey your wiews of the histrory comes from Cartoon Network I'm proud to recognize it.
Now, about not getting
, man you are subtle, who taught you to write like this ?into a war of "wits" with an unarmed man
And speaking of a war of "wits", better unarmed than armed like you
I'm sorry about this little digression, but Mr. Ron Birch provoked me, I promise not to answer to this kind of rethoric any more.
And now comming back to the topic :
Cheshire Yeomanry, please develop a little bit your question as to what does "allied command" means ? Do you implie that the russains were also part of this "allied command" and had a faire share of influence in the decisions to be made ?
Regards
-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
-
Andy H
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 15321
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
- Location: UK and USA
Hi Cezarprimo
I would imagine in this particular instance the Allied command didn't include the Russians and only to a minor degree the other Alled nations and that the weapon being American they would have ultimate sanction over it's use. So with that structure what was the alternative to the "Allied" Command, rather than droping the A-Bombs.
Maybe they could negotiate more with Japan but this would give the Japanesse time to improve any possible anti invasion defences?
Andy from the Shire
I would imagine in this particular instance the Allied command didn't include the Russians and only to a minor degree the other Alled nations and that the weapon being American they would have ultimate sanction over it's use. So with that structure what was the alternative to the "Allied" Command, rather than droping the A-Bombs.
Maybe they could negotiate more with Japan but this would give the Japanesse time to improve any possible anti invasion defences?
Andy from the Shire-
Ron Birch
- Member
- Posts: 515
- Joined: 05 May 2002 00:56
- Location: USA
Andy,
These posts alone along with some hindsite just shows how difficult it is for everyone to agree on how to use the bomb if not at all. We each have our opinion on the subject but the real center of this whole thing is the " A bomb". I have a feeling that if the Allies stayed with conventional bombing with way more loss of life, because of the continuing of the war. there would be no talk about a "crime".
But there is a point to talk about and that is the "politics" of the use, did the Soviet Union change plans in Europe? Was the US really after world domination, to be the only superpower? To contol world markets for thier own gain ( it's a capitalist thing you know). Did the Soviet Union stop way short of what they really wanted in the Japan?
Alot of this is speculation and I'm sure many different opinions on this side of the picture alone. I'm sure I would find interesting posts offered by the members of the forum.
These posts alone along with some hindsite just shows how difficult it is for everyone to agree on how to use the bomb if not at all. We each have our opinion on the subject but the real center of this whole thing is the " A bomb". I have a feeling that if the Allies stayed with conventional bombing with way more loss of life, because of the continuing of the war. there would be no talk about a "crime".
But there is a point to talk about and that is the "politics" of the use, did the Soviet Union change plans in Europe? Was the US really after world domination, to be the only superpower? To contol world markets for thier own gain ( it's a capitalist thing you know). Did the Soviet Union stop way short of what they really wanted in the Japan?
Alot of this is speculation and I'm sure many different opinions on this side of the picture alone. I'm sure I would find interesting posts offered by the members of the forum.
-
tonyh
- Member
- Posts: 2911
- Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
- Location: Dublin, Ireland
re
Dropping the a-bombs were in no way justifiable. You make war on the people of a Country who are fighting you at the time, NOT the generations that come after. The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima suffered hidious after effects of radiation for years after the event.
Besides, conventional bombing was doing fine. Japan was finished. Surrender was enevitable eventually.
Tony
Besides, conventional bombing was doing fine. Japan was finished. Surrender was enevitable eventually.
Tony
-
Andy H
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 15321
- Joined: 12 Mar 2002 20:51
- Location: UK and USA
Tony
I may be mistaken but I thought that the actual radiation step down from Generation to Generation was not particulary high.
I agree conventional bombing was doing fine but they were running out of suitable targets for mass bombings. Most Japanesse industry had been dispersed thus offering limited targets. Also would the continued convential bombing bring Japan to the table to surrender?
Andy from the Shire
I may be mistaken but I thought that the actual radiation step down from Generation to Generation was not particulary high.
I agree conventional bombing was doing fine but they were running out of suitable targets for mass bombings. Most Japanesse industry had been dispersed thus offering limited targets. Also would the continued convential bombing bring Japan to the table to surrender?
Andy from the Shire