Hiroshima ....just an experiment on the already defeated?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

We still have a base there to this day.

I know, I lived there for just over a decade. I also traveled extensively throughout Asia. I know both our "history" and their "history" and the "history" of those that the Japanese attacked. What they did was horrible, worse than what Hitler did, by a measureable magnitude. The Japanese were evil incarnate.

War is hell. There is no other description. The Japanese practiced effective war, and so did we. This crap we have going on since Korea is a bunch of "police action" nonsense. We are not at "war". We are at some presidential hobby that involves troops as long as not too many ppl die and the politicians get some leverage. God forbid anyone died in "war".

Until Korea this is how war went. If you needed to go to war, for whatever reason--land, water, food, oil, whatever--you would kill everyone. Everyone. Eventually your attempts to kill everyone would break the spirit of the people who had everyone dying. Then you win. There is no half efforts, no middle ground. You destroy, kill, and maim everyone. You subjugate those that are left. Japan was merely practicing the art of war. So did we.

The difference is we kept a slightly better moral high ground. Blasting an entire city to smithereens is amazing from a science and publicity (propaganda) standpoint. This is what we did.

Systematically having individuals rape, pillage, murder, maim, burn, pillage, destroy, torture, (add adjectives here) etc... is pretty unpopular. This is what the Japanese did.

So, we both did the same thing. We broke the will of the "enemy". We beat them so badly that they could no longer sustain the will to fight. The difference was the method of delivery.

What will blow your mind, if you think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just "experiments", is the following:

Despite carpet bombing most Japanese cities during the closing months of World War Two, American Air Force pretty much ignored Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nagasaki was a major industrial center for the Japanese.

After the war, the Americans ADMITTED that they left these cities untouched by conventional bombing as they had been picked out long before for targeting by atom bombs, and they wanted to know the effect of the bomb without having to figure out what had been damaged by bombing before the "big one".

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a documented FACT.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Um. . . critical thinking?

You're using a 21st century mindset/viewpoint to judge and determine 20th century actions.

I mean, why not start a thread about how "bleeding" out a person was cruel and inhumane in the past when, in all actuality, physicians at the time, were doing so to try to save lives.

"I have no remorse about the making of the bomb and Trinity [the first test of an a-bomb]. That was done right. As for how we used it, I understand why it happened and appreciate with what nobility those men with whom I'd worked made their decision. But I do not have the feeling that it was done right. The ultimatum to Japan [the Potsdam Proclamation demanding Japan's surrender] was full of pious platitudes. ...our government should have acted with more foresight and clarity in telling the world and Japan what the bomb meant." (Lansing Lamont, Day of Trinity, pg. 332-333).

-Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the Atomic Bomb.

But I guess Oppenheimer, in his 20th century mindset was obviously not as advanced as we are, right? One more Beezer reply to the trash can.

[ thats why no one in America has ever talked about turning Iran into a big "glass bowl", right? Give me a break.

I do NOT agree with turning Iran into a "glass bowl". Just for the record.

BTW: Ron Paul 2012!

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Um. . . critical thinking?

You're using a 21st century mindset/viewpoint to judge and determine 20th century actions.

I mean, why not start a thread about how "bleeding" out a person was cruel and inhumane in the past when, in all actuality, physicians at the time, were doing so to try to save lives.

Really? I guess our 21st century mindset is so far advanced and so far removed from that line of thinking, thats why no one in America has ever talked about turning Iran into a big "glass bowl", right? Give me a break.

You've still failed to address my point.
You're critical of an action, using hindsight as a tool of events that were seen as grave but justifiable at that time.

We know NOW of the devastating and long term effects of such weapons. Our PC society would frown on the use of such on even the most reviled enemy.

In 1945 we weren't trying to win hearts and minds.

We were trying to win a war.

Originally posted by babybunnies
What will blow your mind, if you think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just "experiments", is the following:

Despite carpet bombing most Japanese cities during the closing months of World War Two, American Air Force pretty much ignored Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nagasaki was a major industrial center for the Japanese.

After the war, the Americans ADMITTED that they left these cities untouched by conventional bombing as they had been picked out long before for targeting by atom bombs, and they wanted to know the effect of the bomb without having to figure out what had been damaged by bombing before the "big one".

This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a documented FACT.

This is not true. Again, read the link I posted. Nagasaki was not on the target list. The target list for the first 4 choices:

a. Kyoto
b. Hiroshima
c. Yokohama
d. Kokura Arsenal
[/quote[

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Um. . . critical thinking?

You're using a 21st century mindset/viewpoint to judge and determine 20th century actions.

I mean, why not start a thread about how "bleeding" out a person was cruel and inhumane in the past when, in all actuality, physicians at the time, were doing so to try to save lives.

Really? I guess our 21st century mindset is so far advanced and so far removed from that line of thinking, thats why no one in America has ever talked about turning Iran into a big "glass bowl", right? Give me a break.

You've still failed to address my point.
You're critical of an action, using hindsight as a tool of events that were seen as grave but justifiable at that time.

We know NOW of the devastating and long term effects of such weapons. Our PC society would frown on the use of such on even the most reviled enemy.

In 1945 we weren't trying to win hearts and minds.

We were trying to win a war.

I understand what you are trying to say. Read what Oppenheimer said above, and disagree with him. He certainly did not feel it was "justifiable at the time"! Dont get angry at me youve believed a lie your whole life!

Originally posted by signalfire

What he told me had the ring of truth. He said that the bombs were brought over on board ships, that the sailors and everyone else were terrified of them and that basically, the second bomb was dropped on a few hundred thousand people to get rid of it... they didn't want to take the chance of taking it back home again.

This was one of the most thought provoking posts that I've seen on ATS for a very long time.

In World War 2, the Germans used to drop any left over bombs on the English countryside after bombing London. There were two reasons for this (1) there was a shame with bringing bombs home as you hadn't dropped the entire payload on the city and (2) there was a distinct danger to having to land with live bombs in the bomb bay. I know for a fact that they dropped bombs on the English countryside, my grandmother's house was wiped out by one and she lived many miles from London.

I can honestly believe that they would have considered it too dangerous to transport back to USA so we "might as well drop it". It was the current thinking of the time. Excellent post. Star !

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Um. . . critical thinking?

You're using a 21st century mindset/viewpoint to judge and determine 20th century actions.

I mean, why not start a thread about how "bleeding" out a person was cruel and inhumane in the past when, in all actuality, physicians at the time, were doing so to try to save lives.

"I have no remorse about the making of the bomb and Trinity [the first test of an a-bomb]. That was done right. As for how we used it, I understand why it happened and appreciate with what nobility those men with whom I'd worked made their decision. But I do not have the feeling that it was done right. The ultimatum to Japan [the Potsdam Proclamation demanding Japan's surrender] was full of pious platitudes. ...our government should have acted with more foresight and clarity in telling the world and Japan what the bomb meant." (Lansing Lamont, Day of Trinity, pg. 332-333).

-Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the Atomic Bomb.

But I guess Oppenheimer, in his 20th century mindset was obviously not as advanced as we are, right? One more Beezer reply to the trash can.

Fail, yet again.

You're justifying your viewpoint using selective quotes towards a past event that you deemed as cruel.

Critical thinking.

Please attempt it.

Originally posted by SimonPeter
reply to post by Dr Expired

 

You might be interested to know that Japan was almost finished with their Atom Bomb that they acquired from Germany . We didn't know they were working on it . Would they have used it? Yes ! Three weeks of armed resistance could have given them enough time to nuke us .

There is very strong evidence that AFTER the two bombs were dropped on Japan, the Japanese SUCCESSFULLY test detonated a Japanese nuclear bomb in an area that is now in North Korea, and that has been closed to public access since World War 2.

If you're interested, there's a really, really good documentary, I think it's called "Japan's Atom Bomb" which discusses the possibility.

Originally posted by Bakatono

Systematically having individuals rape, pillage, murder, maim, burn, pillage, destroy, torture, (add adjectives here) etc... is pretty unpopular. This is what the Japanese did.

Right. But American did those same things. There are guys in Afghanistan doing those things now.

Originally posted by Bakatono
So, we both did the same thing. We broke the will of the "enemy". We beat them so badly that they could no longer sustain the will to fight. The difference was the method of delivery.

I see. So do you believe that Al Queda was right to attack us with jetliners? I mean, it was their only method of delivery, and war is war, right?

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

BS

Nagasaki was always a target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically targeted because they had a moderate population (needed to show just how bad it COULD be in a large metropolitan area such as Kyoto or Tokyo) and they had no real religious artifacts. Kyoto has a majority of all the Japanese religious and Shogun history.

You are showing your ignorance and your complete acceptance of American propaganda (who can blame you, they learned from the Nazis!)

www.dannen.com...

Go to part 6, "status of targets". Nagasaki is not listed, and I always wondered why. It looks like signalfire found out why.

Funny. See. I actually lived in Japan for over a decade. I visited the site you are reading about. I have dated girls whose fathers were there when the bombs dropped; we had interesting conversations. (sure, they were young at the time, but the were THERE). I will read your website and take it into account but I know what I know because i experienced it, not read it on someone's blog. I heard it from my Grandfather who was a Marine in the island hopping campaign to the Japanese father who hid in bomb craters in Tokyo during the fire bombings. I have been to Pearl, Hiroshima, Kyoto and lived in Tokyo. I have also been extensively involved with people from places such as S. Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, the PI and so forth. Actually have a relative who has had the opportunity to meet a few Kings. She has extensive stories, she is almost 100. So. I think I have a pretty decent idea of what did, and did not happen, sans "propaganda".

I am glad for sites like your reference and I am glad people are interested in it. Lots of nasty stuff did happen, to be sure. However, I am speaking from a position of a little more authority than you in this case. I lived it, you read it. Sorry.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by aching_knuckles

 

Um. . . critical thinking?

You're using a 21st century mindset/viewpoint to judge and determine 20th century actions.

I mean, why not start a thread about how "bleeding" out a person was cruel and inhumane in the past when, in all actuality, physicians at the time, were doing so to try to save lives.

"I have no remorse about the making of the bomb and Trinity [the first test of an a-bomb]. That was done right. As for how we used it, I understand why it happened and appreciate with what nobility those men with whom I'd worked made their decision. But I do not have the feeling that it was done right. The ultimatum to Japan [the Potsdam Proclamation demanding Japan's surrender] was full of pious platitudes. ...our government should have acted with more foresight and clarity in telling the world and Japan what the bomb meant." (Lansing Lamont, Day of Trinity, pg. 332-333).

-Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, father of the Atomic Bomb.

But I guess Oppenheimer, in his 20th century mindset was obviously not as advanced as we are, right? One more Beezer reply to the trash can.

Fail, yet again.

You're justifying your viewpoint using selective quotes towards a past event that you deemed as cruel.

Critical thinking.

Please attempt it.

Selective quotes? Its the goddamn guy who made the atom bomb! And he thought how it was handled was wrong! How the hell is that a selective quote?? Its not a "Fail, yet again" because you say so. In fact, its the very opposite, and the fact that you cannot even come up with an argument, and just say kid words like "fail" and tell me to attempt critical thinking proves me point. Good day.

Originally posted by Bakatono

Funny. See. I actually lived in Japan for over a decade. I visited the site you are reading about. I have dated girls whose fathers were there when the bombs dropped; we had interesting conversations. (sure, they were young at the time, but the were THERE). I will read your website and take it into account but I know what I know because i experienced it, not read it on someone's blog. I heard it from my Grandfather who was a Marine in the island hopping campaign to the Japanese father who hid in bomb craters in Tokyo during the fire bombings. I have been to Pearl, Hiroshima, Kyoto and lived in Tokyo. I have also been extensively involved with people from places such as S. Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, the PI and so forth. Actually have a relative who has had the opportunity to meet a few Kings. She has extensive stories, she is almost 100. So. I think I have a pretty decent idea of what did, and did not happen, sans "propaganda".

I am glad for sites like your reference and I am glad people are interested in it. Lots of nasty stuff did happen, to be sure. However, I am speaking from a position of a little more authority than you in this case. I lived it, you read it. Sorry.

You lived it?? What about signalfire, who inteviewed THE GUY WHO WAS IN THE CHASE PLANE FOR NAGASAKI.....but you had a Japanese girlfriend, so you lived it. Give me a break. You are just sounding ridiculous. When were you in Japan? 1945? Then you didnt "live it".

By the way, if you went to the link, you would see its not a "blog", it is the declassified document from the target committee. You people are just being willfully ignorant....but then again, you are both US soldiers, I shouldnt expect an open mind on the subject.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Bakatono
later in the thread you advocated blockading and starving them out with the support of all the world ganging up on them. Not sure there is much of a difference except time. Two cities, dead real fast vs. everyone dying very slowly. Kids and all.

No, I suggested as an option. I do certainly advocate it instead of using an atomic weapon on civilians. I disagree there would have been no difference....Japan was close to capitulating. We wouldnt have even had to land a force....if we just amassed one with the Russians and UK/Australia in a show of might, the Japanese likely would have backed down. But then, we would have had to allowed UK and Russia a slice of the pie, just like in Germany.

The end of the war in Germany wasnt about finding Hitler to put on trial - it was a race to Berlin to see who got to keep the city and all the Nazi loot.

Germany aside--completely different conversation--you are pretty much armchair quarterbacking. It has been what 67 years since we dropped the bombs? Sure, perhaps a blockade with the parties you mention could have worked. Perhaps. I would, however, postulate that since neither you or I were even alive at that time there is a possibility that there were things at work that we could not possibly understand. We cannot look 7 decades into the past with a mindset of how we would have liked to have seen things run back-in-the-day.

This gets back to actually going to war, as I described earlier. Read a bit of Sun Tzu. He desribes the "art of war" perfectly. What we do today is not war. The idea of partnering and blockading and so forth is not war. In the art of war, if you have the advantage, you use it (when it is to your best advantage to use it). You do not set your advantage aside in order to be nicer to those you are at war with.

I want to be clear, I am NOT arguing for war. I have been to war, well, what we call "war" these days. I DO know what it is like. I am simply saying, these websites and blogs are nifty. Looking back near 70 years and postulating what "could" have been done is nice. The fact of the matter is war is hell. If/when you ever see it, you will understand. God forbid you ever really understand. It sucks, it is hell. Just like war.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

... read the link I posted. Nagasaki was not on the target list. The target list for the first 4 choices:

a. Kyoto
b. Hiroshima
c. Yokohama
d. Kokura Arsenal
[/quote[

You are absolutely correct. These were the first choices. Nagasaki was NOT on the original list. The problem is; you cannot bomb Kyoto or Yokohama. The reason you cannot is because of their historical heritage and religious significance. We intended to defeat and occupy Japan. That would be very difficult if we blasted their historical and religious sites to dust. Those two were specifically discounted as potential targets as actual planning continued.

No idea why the Kokura Arsenal wasn't bombed. I will have to ask or look around.

Originally posted by Bakatono
We cannot look 7 decades into the past with a mindset of how we would have liked to have seen things run back-in-the-day.

Again, please stop spreading this false dichotomy. There were plenty of people at the time horrified how we used the atom bomb. Oppenheimer, THE MAN WHO CREATED THE WEAPON, was one of them. Please stop talking about it like this is some debate that didnt crop up until 2005.

Originally posted by Bakatono
The idea of partnering and blockading and so forth is not war.

I think the American South in the Civil War would like to disagree with you. That blockade lost them the war.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Bakatono

Systematically having individuals rape, pillage, murder, maim, burn, pillage, destroy, torture, (add adjectives here) etc... is pretty unpopular. This is what the Japanese did.

Right. But American did those same things. There are guys in Afghanistan doing those things now.

Originally posted by Bakatono
So, we both did the same thing. We broke the will of the "enemy". We beat them so badly that they could no longer sustain the will to fight. The difference was the method of delivery.

I see. So do you believe that Al Queda was right to attack us with jetliners? I mean, it was their only method of delivery, and war is war, right?

Really? Holy crap are you reaching for straws at this point.

Ok, one, no one is in Afghanistan raping and murdering babies by the thousands (millions)

two, WTF does this have to do with AQ and 9/11?

If you are attempting to justify AQ's actions as an act of war then I would say yes, from a strategic standpoint they accomplished a pretty lofty goal. They used minimal manpower, almost no technical resources, scant cash and accomplished an event that set off what could be considered a world war. They did it without discrimination against those that were in the buildings other than they were "the enemy" and they wanted to break our will. They miscalculated but hey, they did follow the "art of war".

I in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY think they were RIGHT to do so. I do not think the killing of innocents is ever right and I take exception to the fact that you would insinuate such a thing. To accuse me of such a thing is either small minded or the intent of an angry and feeble person who feels they need to lash out and do harm to others. I have seen the evils of war and I do not advocate for any of them. I am sure that you were comfortable in your chair while I was enduring my time learning what death means and I am sure you have a great many opinions about it. Good for you. When it is your time to experience these things, I wish I could be there to hear your opinions then.

It WAS a mildly interesting conversation, your prior insults aside, but I am done with this now. You are a tool and your intent is to insult. Good-bye.

Originally posted by Bakatono
The fact of the matter is war is hell. If/when you ever see it, you will understand. God forbid you ever really understand. It sucks, it is hell. Just like war.

I understand all about war. I had a former special forces soldier that fought in Viet Nam tell me "If you ever join the army, I will personally kick your ass." I heard his stories, saw his purple hearts and his medal of honor from the south vietnamese government. it was enough to keep me far, far away from the armed forces.

My great grandfather was crippled by a bomb in WWII. My grandfather, then 13, was conscripted into the Nazi army. Before he finished boot camp, he was captured by Russians, forced to march to Nuremburg, then back to Austria. I heard crazy stories from him.

My great uncle marched with Patton.

Please dont act like you are the only one who knows about these things.

Originally posted by aching_knuckles

Originally posted by Bakatono
The fact of the matter is war is hell. If/when you ever see it, you will understand. God forbid you ever really understand. It sucks, it is hell. Just like war.

I understand all about war. I had a former special forces soldier that fought in Viet Nam tell me "If you ever join the army, I will personally kick your ass." I heard his stories, saw his purple hearts and his medal of honor from the south vietnamese government. it was enough to keep me far, far away from the armed forces.

My great grandfather was crippled by a bomb in WWII. My grandfather, then 13, was conscripted into the Nazi army. Before he finished boot camp, he was captured by Russians, forced to march to Nuremburg, then back to Austria. I heard crazy stories from him.

My great uncle marched with Patton.

Please dont act like you are the only one who knows about these things.

Ok. so one more post.

Oooooh, you heard stories, good for you.