Did you know that Hiroshma and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets?

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. It was also a communications center, a storage point, an assembly area for troops, and was a military-industrial center powered by the mass-scale forced labour of Koreans known as hibakusha. The Hiroshima island of Edajima hosted the Navy Elite Academy. Kure, around 20 km from Hiroshima, was also known for a military port and navy factories. The famous giant warship, Yamato, was constructed in Kure. The material and labour for Kure came from Hiroshima.

Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and had wide-ranging industrial importance. Ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials were manufactured there. The Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works was located there. Mitsubishi produced over 10,000 Zero fighters and the battleship Musashi.

An atrocity is an atrocity, no matter how much tactical justification there is to support it.

Originally posted by prototism
An atrocity is an atrocity, no matter how much tactical justification there is to support it.

I know. Too bad it took that to end the war. Sad really.

Sure they were and Dresden, Germany was a good target too. All Europe and the United States knew it was a refuge for women and children and we bombed it night after night and killed tens of thousands......

In the end........each man will be judged by his deeds in this life, there is no escaping that.

I mean, I have always just generally assumed they both were military targets. I don't see how the US government (back then) could slaughter those millions of people, without some sort of tactical justification.

Sadly, the same can not be said about today's government. Then again, maybe it can, albeit in a much more morally perverted way.

That is, if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, then their "tactical justification" would of course be an excuse to get a "justified" foothold in the Middle East (and drain their resources, exterminate our advesaries, etc). But this is a well known conspiracy theory, and I'm just beating a dead horse.

The underlying point I'm trying to make is, is the principle (tactical justification) of Hiroshima/Nagasaki really that different from 9/11?

[edit on 11/11/2008 by prototism]

Water under the bridge. Hopefully we learned something from it.

I think we did. We're not so prone to slaughter the innocent as we were in that time.

It still happens, but not on such a scale.

Perhaps, just perhaps, the lesson was learned.

I am not going to vouch accuracy, but some food for thought:

The bombs killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945,[4] roughly half on the days of the bombings. Since then, thousands more have died from injuries or illness attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs.[1] In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Japanese atrocities and their obvious brainwashed state by that point in the war were well known by those fighting (and their leaders). I think it is safe to say that by the time the bombs were dropped, few had much regard for Japanese life, and it was generally assumed that an invasion of the mainland would be a bloodbath.

That today, on Veteran's Day, revisionists paint the U.S. as committing "atrocities" against the Japanese while so many Americans sacrificed so much to stop the absolute evil of a soulless empire, is, well, unspeakably disgusting.

I have a living relative who survived numerous battles in MacArthur's campaign, against all odds. May God continue to bless him, a true hero.

reply to post by mrwupy


It should be water under the bridge. And it would be, except that

the World is constantly talking about nuclear arms. And the World still has them. Kinda hard to forget.


[edit on 12-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Ahh Hiroshima,
I cant stay away from a thread of this truley significant city.



For anyones interest, here's a photo diary of my trip there during the 2008 anniversary

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Yes, Hiroshima had , like every single city in Japan something contributing towards the war.
Did this justify a nuclear weapon?

Many pieces of evidence have come suggesting the Japanese were on their last legs, and in the process of surrender, it also goes on to show that the US cracked the Japanese codes long ago, and more than likely knew this.

So, again, does this justify the dropping of the bomb?

Carpet bombing Japan like we did was having amazing results ( all be it horrible )

But imagine the world if the USA didnt drop the bomb?
How long until Russia would of taken Europe as a whole?

Nagasaki wasnt nessecary, it was a science expirement.
Different variables all over...



The thing that scares me about Hiroshima,
Is the day it becomes insignificant...
and it only becomes insignificant, when its just another nuclear devestated city





Also,
hibakusha is a 'survivor' of the bomb, not the prisoners.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by Grumble
That today, on Veteran's Day, revisionists paint the U.S. as committing "atrocities" against the Japanese while so many Americans sacrificed so much to stop the absolute evil of a soulless empire, is, well, unspeakably disgusting.

So you disagree with the premise that the murder of thousands of innocent civilians was atrocious?

[edit on 11/11/2008 by prototism]

Originally posted by prototism

Originally posted by Grumble
That today, on Veteran's Day, revisionists paint the U.S. as committing "atrocities" against the Japanese while so many Americans sacrificed so much to stop the absolute evil of a soulless empire, is, well, unspeakably disgusting.

So you disagree with the premise that the murder of thousands of innocent civilians was atrocious?

[edit on 11/11/2008 by prototism]

The entire war was atrocious. I wouldn't call deaths during a war murder, or/unless perhaps every death in WWII was a murder.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Did this justify a nuclear weapon?

Yes, and no.

It has not happened again.

The fear of the effects have scarred mankind.

Many pieces of evidence have come suggesting the Japanese were on their last legs, and in the process of surrender, it also goes on to show that the US cracked the Japanese codes long ago, and more than likely knew this.

Japan had an official policy of never surrrendering. Under what was known as the Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive) strategy, the stated military goal of Japan was to extract as many deaths as possible from their enemies per each troop. On June 9, 1945, Japanese Premier Suzuki announced that Japan would fight to the bitter end. Effective suicidal island defensive battle tactics, beginning with Peleliu, replaced unsuccesful banzai charges. Iwo Jima was defended by 21,000 Japanese troops. An astounding 20,000 of these fought to the death. Kamikaze airplane attacks, though seen earlier in a limited use, became more common. Because of the stated policy and the accompaning tactic changes, the Allied commanders completely belived that Japan was not bluffing. That lead to the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.




[edit on 11-11-2008 by RKWWWW]

reply to post by RKWWWW


That is true, but history shows having a policy of non-surrender doesnt mean they'll never surrender, because quite clearly they did.

The Japanes were trying to force out a face saving surrender, its just that we wanted to test this new toy, and test it twice, showing the ruskies and the world who the new power was!

As Reality said,

the use of this weapon has ensured it hasnt been used since,
but, it has been built, and perfected to make it 1000x bigger.

Im certain this weapon will be used again in my lifetime!
think thats a jump?

Well there's still people around who witnessed it first hand.

[edit on 11-11-2008 by Agit8dChop]

Originally posted by RKWWWW

Originally posted by prototism

Originally posted by Grumble
That today, on Veteran's Day, revisionists paint the U.S. as committing "atrocities" against the Japanese while so many Americans sacrificed so much to stop the absolute evil of a soulless empire, is, well, unspeakably disgusting.

So you disagree with the premise that the murder of thousands of innocent civilians was atrocious?

[edit on 11/11/2008 by prototism]

The entire war was atrocious. I wouldn't call deaths during a war murder, or/unless perhaps every death in WWII was a murder.

Any war is atrocious. And you don't want to call death in war murder, because it is easier for your mind and conscience to cope with. But I'll come to a middle ground with you: During war, the death of a civilian can be considered murder moreso than the death of a willing combatant.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by RKWWWW

 

That is true, but history shows having a policy of non-surrender doesnt mean they'll never surrender, because quite clearly they did.

The Japanes were trying to force out a face saving surrender, its just that we wanted to test this new toy, and test it twice, showing the ruskies and the world who the new power was!

We "tested" it twice because, amazingly, the Japanese Supreme War Direction Council , after the learning the extent of the first bomb, voted to continue the war. Then when the second bomb was dropped they "quite clearly" surrendered.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by RKWWWW

 

That is true, but history shows having a policy of non-surrender doesnt mean they'll never surrender, because quite clearly they did.

Their philosophy on surrender was forced to change; it was not voluntary. The only reason they did surrender, is because it would be foolish not to.

I would bet that there was much resentment in the Japanese ambassador's heart's and minds during that meeting of surrender.

Any war is atrocious. And you don't want to call death in war murder, because it is easier for your mind and conscience to cope with. But I'll come to a middle ground with you: During war, the death of a civilian can be considered murder moreso than the death of a willing combatant.

Would a factory worker in Nagasaki at the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works making Zero fighters be a civilian or a combatant?

Originally posted by prototism

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by RKWWWW

 

That is true, but history shows having a policy of non-surrender doesnt mean they'll never surrender, because quite clearly they did.

Their philosophy on surrender was forced to change; it was not voluntary. The only reason they did surrender, is because it would be foolish not to.

I would bet that there was much resentment in the Japanese ambassador's heart's and minds during that meeting of surrender.

Yes. They were forced to surrender.