Thread: Hiroshima And Nagasaki

Originally Posted by Universal

The Japanese soldiers did believe that the Emporer was God, and they were very willing to fight to the end and die for him. That is why so many of them committed suicide attacks in their airplanes.
[/b]

The Japanese Kamikaze pilots died "for their country" for the exact same reasons that many American soldiers died in "last stand" situations in the Civil War, the War of Independance, etc. Being a f%&$ing stupid idiot and dying "for your country" is a mentality that is shared by pretty much all major world cultured. In the case of Japan, it was just a little more "hands-on" in the case of Kamikaze bombers.

Originally Posted by Universal

Interestingly, this afternoon on the History Channel, some American WWII veterans were talking about exactly that. One of the veterans said that the Japanese soldiers were willing to die for their God, the Emporer. Then he said something like, "Our attitude was that if they wanted to die for their Emporer, we were willing to accomodate them."
[/b]

And exactly how much of an understanding do you expect an American army grunt to have of Japanese culture? The History Channel, while entertaining, is far from scholarly and its programs are often "dumbed down". Fromk what I've seen, there is also a strong tendency to use inappropriate sources to support the blanket statements some of the programs make.

I'm not saying the History Channel is crap. It's entertaining, mostly right most of the time, and provides a good background... but just don't expect to get a thorough understanding of the issues behind some of the programs it airs.

Originally Posted by Universal

The first nuclear bombing did not make them surrender. It took a second nuclear bombing to make it happen. So why would they have surrendered without a nuclear bombing?
[/b]

For the umpteenth time, though I really feel by now that this is falling on deaf ears and a closed mind, the Japanese head already indicated their willingness to surrender. What you SHOULD be saying is "Why did Truman not accept Japanese surrender before the bombings, or even after the first bomb?".

Originally Posted by Universal

Back to my question to the America haters... Why did the Japanese not surrender in the first days after the first nuclear bombing if they were supposedly already ready to surrender before it? (Answers so far: 1. Three days was not enough time, despite the very fast communication and transportation technology. -- Bonsay) Does anybody else dare to answer the question? You are trying to get us to understand your view, aren't you?
[/b]

Man, if you'd seriously read BACK a page or two and stop asking why anyone hasn't answered you, you'll see I already answered your question f%$&ing AGES ago, but, both you and Hominus both decided to ignore me. For your conveniance (and to assuage my own frustration) I'll quote again here what I said in answer to your question days ago:

Originally Posted by Universal

Hiroshima scared the japanese government shitless. Prior to hiroshima, they had basically trumpeted their willingness to agree to a surrender. Fucking asswipe Truman had not only refused to let them surrender, but her had refused to even LISTEN to their offers. Then, he had proceeded to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. The Japanese administration were in a state of panic and confusion - it seemed to them like truman, given his indicated unwillingness to even LISTEN to their offers of surrender, and his subsequent dropping of the bomb... it seemed to the japanese administration that he was not interested in a surrender, and instead wanted to totally destroy and nuke japan.
[/b]

Blue Meanie, for the umpteen jillion octillion killion willion trillion chillionth time, we demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender, UNDERSTANDABLY!!! People in this forum keep insisting that we were about to get that before the first nuking. Hominus and I keep asking how that makes even the first bit of sense when that didn't happen in the few days AFTER the first nuking. The fact that somebody Japanese said, "Uh, we think we are probably about to unconditionally surrender, it looks like," doesn't mean jack squat! Those words were invalidated by the fact that they did not unconditionally surrender as a result of the first nuclear bomb, and therefore were not on the edge of surrender just before it. We had obviously not crippled them to that level yet. Open you mind and try to understand the issue. Then see what you can do about giving us an on-point answer. Thanks.

The nukes saved millions of lives. Without them, the war would have gone on eons longer. Japan would have been just as stubborn as North Vietnam. We fought those stubborn mules for 12 years and and killed 4 million of them, compared to our 55 thousand, and they never did surrender. South Vietnam is under communist rule to this day as a result. Give nukes a chance.

Originally Posted by Universal

Blue Meanie, for the umpteen jillion octillion killion willion trillion chillionth time, we demanded UNCONDITIONAL surrender, UNDERSTANDABLY!!! People in this forum keep insisting that we were about to get that before the first nuking. Hominus and I keep asking how that makes even the first bit of sense when that didn't happen in the few days AFTER the first nuking. The fact that somebody Japanese said, "Uh, we think we are probably about to unconditionally surrender, it looks like," doesn't mean jack squat! Those words were invalidated by the fact that they did not unconditionally surrender as a result of the first nuclear bomb, and therefore were not on the edge of surrender just before it. We had obviously not crippled them to that level yet. Open you mind and try to understand the issue. Then see what you can do about giving us an on-point answer. Thanks.

The nukes saved millions of lives. Without them, the war would have gone on eons longer. Japan would have been just as stubborn as North Vietnam. We fought those stubborn mules for 12 years and and killed 4 million of them, compared to our 55 thousand, and they never did surrender. South Vietnam is under communist rule to this day as a result. Give nukes a chance.
[/b]

ok im curious do many americans think this way? that they need exactly unconditional surrender or a few hundred thousand civilians can be bombed? is that something that america generally believes to be true?

DId you just call people "stubborn mules"?give nukes a chance? wow...shit...you are a scary man universal mind.

didn;t you say your a lawyer AND from the south? what a combination...yah i know i added nothing to the debate just now im really just in awe of what can come out of the south .

Firstly, let me blatantly try to discredit your opinions because of spelling.

Secondly, let me use this format of expression my opinion because appearantly adding numberings to my arguments adds to it's validity.

Thirdly, let me show contempt for any opinion other than my own by stating "Oh my God!" and the like.

Yeah.



Anyway.



Let's take the argument outside of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima realm for a second. Many of you are readily willing the criticise (or even bash)--many times without a reason--the United States because of the huge effect it has on world politics today. But, as stated previously, you do not live in a post-cold war era in which the Soviet Union is victorious. Now, granted, this does not give the U.S. immunity from criticism--a government without criticism of government is suicide (though an excess appears to be a crippling factor if you take into account the recent wars in the Middle East)--but the United States does not single-handedly manage world politics. The United States isn't some evil force. If you objectively look at the nation, you'll see it does have some questionable practices, but these are exploded upon to the point of naseum by theworld media because of the United States' position as sole superpower.

Let's just say for a second that, oh, I don't know, Albania was the largest economy and armed power in the world. Albania, in this scenario, exerts a massive amount of influence in the world. Because of this, the country is blamed for many of the world's problems, when in reality there are some problems which are quite independent of Albania. But of course something Superpower Albania did X-years in it's history before is running the entire chain events and effects in the world until forever in world politics (/sarcasm).

The reality is that every action made effects the world, even if you don't consciously see it. The collapse of the Roman empire effected the world, as you taking out your garbage effects the world, as climate effects the world, etc, etc. I'm sorry, but the world isn't black and white. Actions the United States has taken in it's history, such as, and going back to the topic, the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, have no doubt had their effect, but there's a point where you have to see certain things of being independent of previous circumstances (even though nothing truly is). My point is, think before you say certain things about countries, not just the United States, but others as well.



On the topic of the atomic bombings, I do believe objectively that lives were saved, at least in context of World War II and seperate from future world events. Certainly millions. And while the Japanese were not people who concretely believed that the Emperor was a god, he was most definately an important symbol. Given the Japanese culture and the history of honor and such, the capture or murder of this figure would have been entirely unacceptable. For when your guiding force of strength is taken away, what is left for you to believe in?

Likewise, for the United States, who knew fully the rivalry with the Soviet Union that which was approaching, any sort of additional Soviet influence in Asia was entirely unacceptable. Even before the Cold War was well underway, the U.S. was cutting their losses. The thought of any kind of communist divide in Japan is quite jarring, to say the least. And while I see no country as being "good" or "evil" by any means, it remains evident, by their previous policies and actions, that the Soviet methods of handling things were less than "clean".

Whatever the case, I find this topic to get quite repetitive on many sides of the argument. There's no answer, obviously, and I doubt anyone will truly know all the objective facts about what was going on during that time in history.

Ugh i jst kind of scrolled through because im done with this topic. I saw somone try to relate the civil war to the japanese in world war two. I suggest you go read a book on what that was was actually about a few times.

Heres the clincher. IT WASNT ABOUT SLAVERY.

Originally Posted by TheNocturnalGent

Heres the clincher. IT WASNT ABOUT SLAVERY.
[/b]

It was a big part of it. Mainly, the issue of slavery is what fueled the states' rights debate, which had a great deal to do with the civil war. The taxation of the South for things that the South had no voice about was huge also. All of that led to the secession of the South from the United States, and that secession was the problem the Civil War was about correcting. As a result of winning the war, Lincoln demanded that slavery be ended. So it was a factor, just not the whole point.

i didnt mention anything about states rights and the fact that before the civil war Abe said that the south can keep their slaves if they dont try to secede(mb) hoping some people might actually take the time to look it up, but yea, knowlege is power.

...it's spelled secede. Succeed is something entirely different.

QUOTE(The Blue Meanie @ Sep 7 2006, 09:04 PM) *

Howetzer:
If we cannot take as evidence the words of high-placed officials in an administration as evidence of that administration's thoughts and intentions... where better should we get evidence from? I get the feeling that you would rather we simply accept the government's actions and inner workings as unimpeachable. If this is the case, this is a VERY DANGEROUS attitude.



Quite the opposite, To your above response. In similar fashion could you not make the same argument in that same administration to quantify reasons for making such a monumental decision, as to use a nuclear weapon at that given time?
I wish more people put some trust in their own (elected) administration. Try that method on the biased party against the Bush administration today ... see how far you get.
Hind site is always 20/20. Similar to what we are seeing in today's war, like I see in your argument, Backlash! Post decision arguments and conclusions based again on hind site.
I cant imagine such a device being used for anything less than a last resort.

I believe Hominis Feralis was making the argument, that we can only speculate at this point, that war casualties (for the US) would be far greater than the decision to use the nuclear method.
Though defeated in a military sense, Japan showed no disposition to surrender unconditionally. And Japanese troops had demonstrated time and again that they could fight and inflict heavy casualties even when the outlook was hopeless. Allied plans in the spring of 1945 took these facts into account and proceeded on the assumption that an invasion of the home islands would be required to achieve at the earliest possible date the unconditional surrender of Japan-the announced objective of the war and the first requirement of all strategic planning.

Article 518. Briefing to President Truman.
Page 518
QUOTE
It would be a fruitless task to weigh accurately the relative importance of all the factors leading to the Japanese surrender. There is no doubt that Japan had been defeated by the summer of 1945, if not earlier. But defeat did not mean that the military clique had given up; the Army intended to fight on and had made elaborate preparations for the defense of the homeland. Whether air bombardment and naval blockade or the threat of invasion would have produced an early surrender and averted the heavy losses almost certain to accompany the actual landings in Japan is a moot question. Certainly they had a profound effect on the Japanese position. It is equally difficult to assert categorically that the atomic bomb alone or Soviet intervention alone was the decisive factor in bringing the war to an end. All that can be said on the available evidence is that Japan was defeated in the military sense by August 1945 and that the bombing of Hiroshima, followed by the Soviet Union's declaration of war and the bombing of Nagasaki and the threat of still further bombing, acted as catalytic agents to produce the Japanese decision to surrender. Together they created so extreme a crisis that the Emperor himself, in an unprecedented move, took matters into his own hands and ordered his ministers to surrender. Whether any other set of circumstances would have resolved the crisis and produced the final decision to surrender is a question history cannot yet answer.


The work of the Interim Committee was completed 1 June 1945, [21] when it submitted its report to the President, recommending unanimously that:

1. The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.

2. It should be used against a military target surrounded by other buildings.

3. It should be used without prior warning of the nature of the weapon. (One member, Ralph A. Bard, later dissented from this portion of the committee's recommendation.)

Are we considered that uncivilized and self serving? Maybe. I hope not.

Prior wars were fought in the battle field. Hitler began to target civilians in is war strategy. Prior to that it was thought of as unthought of. After some time, the US and all their allies began to stoop to the same level.
So I must consider why we targeted a city to detonate this atomic weapon. A demonstration out in the sea would surly gotten our message across.
The British and others conducted such fierce bombing raids with conventional weapons that caused a devastating effects on Tokyo?? I believe. So fierce that fire storms ensued, giving rise to the notion that these raids had similar casualties for civilians

America committed the worst war crime ever by dropping those bombs! How dare they tell North Korea or anyone else that they can't have nuclear weapons, they have no moral high ground at all!

Originally Posted by loveapple

America committed the worst war crime ever by dropping those bombs! How dare they tell North Korea or anyone else that they can't have nuclear weapons, they have no moral high ground at all!
[/b]

With your philosophy you are prepared for nuclear winter.

What would happen if The countries of the United nations that have Nuclear weapons disarmed?
What would happen if we continue to let rogue nations obtain nuclear capabilities?

Originally Posted by Howetzer

With your philosophy you are prepared for nuclear winter.

What would happen if The countries of the United nations that have Nuclear weapons disarmed?
What would happen if we continue to let rogue nations obtain nuclear capabilities?
[/b]

If I had my way no one would have nuclear weapons as no one is respensible enough to be trusted with such dreadful weapons!

The united nation having nuclear arms is a necessary evil... America telling people what to do and what not, indeed is hypocritical. Yet they are a part of the UN... however they shouldn't be. Yet their ego will never let them to disarm themselves, not even when their economy will fall over 10-30 years.

Nobody can blame America for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The entire world was wrecked with war, and we wanted to fight to be finished. The truth is it actually saved lives. Once we saw why they could never be used again on people, we created doctrines.

In my opinion, you better be GLAD it was America, and not Germany or Russia, who invented to bomb first. There is no telling what they would have done with that kind of capability. America was and still is the most responsible candidate for nuclear control.

Unfortunately, loveapple, the world doesnt think like you. There will always be people who use death and horror to get their way, and they dont care who they hurt in the process. This is why we must have nukes. This is why England and France need nukes. To keep \"checks and balances\" on these rogue people and countries. Really, if you think about it, America is really the only thing that is keeping terrorist states from using nuclear bombs. They know that if they did, their world would turn upside down.

In these days, nuclear armament is a deterant. I believe that America, as well as the other \"offical\" nuclear holders, are the ones to hold this responsibility. It is up to us the keep the world in balance.

Terrorists and fanatics will always seek nukes. It is like a gold mine to them. Once they find that they can use it without getting caught, they will. Just be prepared.

Nobody is responsible enough to have nukes? Really? Then why havent they been used on people in 60 years? Everybody knows that the first country to use nukes on people will dissapear. I dont think any government of offical nuclear holding countries will be stupid enough to use them. It would be suicide.

The truth is that all we can say is our opinion (on this particular subject). Nobody here knows if governments are REALLY disciplined enough to have nukes. But on the other hand you cannot say definately that they are not.

Nukes are weapons that remain throughout the rest of human history. It is truely too good of a resource to just forget about. All we can hope is that they dont get used.

HOWETZER!!!!!!!! I am back at college, and i found a way to get on this site using a proxy. I dont want to do that, since it\'s kind of going behind the staff\'s back, but i did. Plus its REALLY slow. Anyway, please talk to icedog or seeker about my problem. It\'s been like 4 weeks and i still havent got an answer. Gracias, chico!!!!

Originally Posted by loveapple

If I had my way no one would have nuclear weapons as no one is respensible enough to be trusted with such dreadful weapons!
[/b]

So you think North Korea should not have nuclear weapons? We finally agree on something.

If you have a problem with the U.S. using nuclear weapons for the purpose of ending the worst war in history, imagine Kim Jong Il selling them to Al Qaeda or the like. Shouldn't we prevent such a thing? Or should we say, "Well, we did use nuclear weapons to prevent years of continued fighting on the Japanese mainland, so we can't prevent Kim Jong Il from giving nukes to Al Qaeda."? Bad plan.

Originally Posted by loveapple

If I had my way no one would have nuclear weapons as no one is respensible enough to be trusted with such dreadful weapons!
[/b]

This is unfortunately a case of (after the fact)
Ever since it's creation the world will always be a different place. I agree that a the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons (Not power). But that is not the case.
We have to entrust the superpowers that realize the potential of this weapon only would relate in destruction for any side. What we can do is still have a non proliferation treaty in place so it does not fall into the wrong hands as Universal Mind suggested.
You must certainly realize that we cannot disarm ourselves just as China or Russia could not do so either.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Hard as Nails")</div>

In these days, nuclear armament is a deterant. I believe that America, as well as the other &#092;"offical&#092;" nuclear holders, are the ones to hold this responsibility. It is up to us the keep the world in balance.[/b]

Totally unrelated to other posts, but what about the fact that America was making money of the war that was raging in Europe before America got Forced to participate?

I think this poll is flawed in that it looks at lives as just a base number. The lives saved by dropping the bombs were mostly soldiers&#39;. The lives lost from the bombs were mostly civilians&#39;.

Originally Posted by Wolffe

I think this poll is flawed in that it looks at lives as just a base number. The lives saved by dropping the bombs were mostly soldiers&#39;. The lives lost from the bombs were mostly civilians&#39;.
[/b]

Pretty good point, I didn&#39;t even thought about that.