Hiroshima

[Debbieangel]

Not that I would agree with using the bomb, but, we were fighting on both fronts and I am sure our troops were spread pretty thin. The Japanese were coming at us with everything they had...The Kamaksi pilots? They werent into surrender. Then we had Hitler on the other side doing his thing. After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagaski pretty much ended the war for USA and Japan its sad that, that had to happen. I hope the bomb never has to be used again!!!

[Neil]

we were fighting on both fronts To be perdantic, hadn't the war in europe finished? (3 months)

[Terran]

You mean pedantic right?.... Cause I was like looking it up hoping to add a new vocab word....cause I had never heard of perdantic...

[Debbieangel]

To be perdantic, hadn't the war in europe finished? (3 months) sorry what does perdantic mean? I am not sure of timeframe when war with europe was finished but, my point was that the Japanese was that they were relentless in trying to win the war with us!(USA) Pear Harbor stays fresh in my mind how far they would go in their cause , they were really bent on winning! I am not a history buff...I do enjoy watching the history channel from time to time but I never remember times and dates! I wont defend nor could I defend such an awful thing as bombing people out of existence. I have watched soo many documenteries on WWII I wish I could remember it all its so interesting I would debate all day with you if I could recall it all Neil it would be so much fun. Do you think the Japanese would have stopped if those bombs were not dropped on them?

[Mutineer]

Far as I understand it was Kruschev, not Castro, who was prepared to Nuke the US. Cuba was just another Cold War proxy like South Vietnam and South Korea. Castro needed the Soviet help to deter Imment inavasion, in his point of view, Justified by The Bay of Pigs invasion and numerous assasination attempts. It was avoided by JFK sending a lettter to Krushchev basically allowing him a way out by suggesting what he might say/ That was prompted by a letter Krushchev sent to JFK where he used a tiny bit of US propgandaish language to subtley indicate he was open to a solution. JFK picked up on that cue , shot a letter back and Kruschev allowed he waepons tobe withdrawn. With all due respect; that's partly correct (that is the 13 Days version). Castro reccomended to Kruschev that they use the nuclear missles against the U.S. and when asked if he would have risked total destuction of Cuba; he said of course. We are aware of the letters between Kennedy and Kruschev, but I was emphasizing; it was Castro who was the madman among them (Kruschev, Kennedy, McNamara). Castro was ready and willing to bring the temple down if not for the Kennedy administration's handling of the situation. There were over 90 tactical weapons on the island at that time which the U.S. did not know about. Run (don't walk) and go get Alex Jones The Fog of War. Brilliantly engaging stuff. - * Another interesting note on South Vietnam; the United States viewed the Vietnam War as an extension of the Cold War (as you mention); when in reality it was the North Vietnamese fighting for their own freedoms (This too is covered in the film). This is where Understanding your enemy comes into play. No offense, but so far the only goverment crazy enough to use nukes are the US... Our use of the bomb ended the great war; which cost the countries of our planet over 60,000,000 lives. The bombs cost Japan: 200,000 (Estimate of course) This is another lesson in the film: In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil. Oh, and none taken.

[Terran]

sorry what does perdantic mean? I am not sure of timeframe when war with europe was finished but, my point was that the Japanese was that they were relentless in trying to win the war with us!(USA) Pear Harbor stays fresh in my mind how far they would go in their cause , they were really bent on winning! I am not a history buff...I do enjoy watching the history channel from time to time but I never remember times and dates! I wont defend nor could I defend such an awful thing as bombing people out of existence. I have watched soo many documenteries on WWII I wish I could remember it all its so interesting I would debate all day with you if I could recall it all Neil it would be so much fun. Do you think the Japanese would have stopped if those bombs were not dropped on them? Im pretty sure he meant pedantic pe·dan·tic –adjective 1. ostentatious in one's learning. 2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching. So like in the context of what he was saying...If he meant pedantic... [he was saying that "To be overly specific the war was already over as Europe was concerned" more to the context of the word pedantic he was correcting your previous statement reguarding "two fronts" because that wasnt the case] I think this information is accurate .... anyone feel free to find contradictory information...it was a sloppy find...(Wiki but I figured as concrete as something as WW2 the information would be reliable) So depending on which date you consider the German Surrender was in Early May...and the Japanese mid-late august....... Admiral Karl Dönitz became leader of the German government after the death of Hitler, but the German war effort quickly disintegrated. German forces in Berlin surrendered the city to Soviet troops on May 2, 1945. The German forces in Italy surrendered on May 2, 1945, at General Alexander's headquarters, and German forces in northern Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands surrendered on May 4. The surrender in Italy was preceded by the controversial secret Operation Sunrise in March 1945, during which the Great Britain and the United States were accused by the Soviet Union of trying to reach a separate peace. The German High Command under Generaloberst Alfred Jodl surrendered unconditionally all remaining German forces on May 7 in Rheims, France. The western Allies celebrated "V-E Day" on May 8. The Soviet Union celebrated "Victory Day" on May 9. Some remnants of German Army Group Center continued resistance until May 11 or May 12 (see Prague Offensive). [3] The American use of atomic weapons against Japan and the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo prompted Hirohito to bypass the existing government and intervene to end the war. In his radio address to the nation, the Emperor did not mention the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, but in his "Rescript to the soldiers and sailors" of August 17th, ordering them to cease fire and lay down arms, he stressed the relationship between Soviet entrance into the war and his decision to surrender, omitting any mention of the atomic bombs. The Japanese surrendered on August 14, 1945, or V-J day, signing the Japanese Instrument of Surrender on September 2. The Japanese troops in China formally surrendered to the Chinese on September 9, 1945.

[Debbieangel]

To be perdantic, hadn't the war in europe finished? (3 months) I stand corrected!! Thank you!

[Arcades057]

The war in Europe had ended a few months before we used the bomb against Japan. We were ready to begin transfering battle-proven divisions from Europe over to the islands to begin the invasion of the Japanese home islands. Any WWII veteran who is questioned about the usage of the bomb is quick to defend it. How many American lives were saved by using it? Moreover, how many Japanese lives were saved? How many hundreds of thousands may have died in defending their emperor? Look at it like this, in a modern sense... We bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing around 120k to 160,000 people. The war ended midway between the first bombing and the second, if you listen to some accounts. The point of it is, the war was over. The Japanese were beaten and they knew it. Their will to continue the war ebbed away after seeing ONE bomb destroy an entire city, twice. They realized they could give up, while still saving face, as only a madman would continue that war. Now fast forward to today. How many Iraq civilians have died so far? How many coalition troops? Pick a city, any city. Let's say Sadr City. http://pao.hood.army.mil/1CD_20thEng..._sadr_city.htm Going by that site, the city has a population of 2.5 million, give or take. Once we invade Iraq and notice the terrorists will continue the war, fighting amongst the civilians to prohibit our returning fire, we deploy a single ALCM with a small, tactical nuclear warhead against the city center, dropping it right through Muqtada al-Sadr's window. We take away the Maadi Army's will to fight. We order an end to the terrorism in Iraq. It doesn't work? We target a second weapon on Najaf. It WILL work. Why, you ask? Why is this not a totally mad idea that speaks of hatred and malice? Our enemies in this day and age, an all days and ages, respect strength, not weakness. Whereas some people would consider the ability of diplomacy a strength, those who know anything about force know it's what the weaker side resorts to so they can get something done. Who is the side that constantly resorts to trying to talk out the problem? I don't hear Bin Laden ordering his soldiers not to attack churches and civilians... That would be us. I know, I know, "I am like, soooo glad you aren't in charge of ANYTHING!" right? Sometimes it pays to think outside the box and try something new, besides giving up and running away like scared little girls. You feel that feeling in your gut when you think about running away? That's called pride. Everyone has it; not everyone listens to it. We need to use it as a nation, not just us, but England as well. And I've gone off topic.

[tju1973]

A nurse survives the blast... Dry and thirsty she manages to crawl to the small pool she new was in back of the hospital. When she gets there she finds a multitude of wounded and thirsty people already there... The first who crawl in, die under the weight of the others who then crawled in and onto them.... Soon after the blast, a mother manages to find the remains of her home. Her six year old child has survived the blast but is trapped in the ruins from the waist up... She cries out to her mother that she cannot breath. The mother tries to free the child, but can not... Slowly the fires approach and after continued attempts to free the child, she has to leave her daughter to burn to death... The same women is in hospital four days later with her husband. The staff try to take a blood sample from the husband. When removing the needle, the blood fails to stop flowing.... The husband bleeds to death while vomiting dark brown matter... The wife lays next to him during the hour it takes him to die... I always find myself with such mixed emotions to Hiroshima... I can understand the arguments for the weapons use, but I find the scientific and lab-rat approach to the blast taints the event almost too much as an experiment under the guise of something else... However, logic says while the first bomb should have been dropped in an unpopulated zone to demonstrate the weapon I can understand that these weapons were incredibly hard to construct so each was "precious", and also I suspect the powers that be in Japan may have ignored such a demonstration... It was a most hideous act, which was probably the better of two evils... Mind you, could Japan have just been left? Was a surrender necessary out of interest? Opinions? ..but by God we finished it. I have said this before--- If you are going to fight, fight to win. Use everything you have to win. Destroy the enemy. Make war so horrible through victory that people will not want to prosecute it again...War to the knife, the knife to the hilt, eh? That being said, as long as there are two people on this mudball called Earth, then there will be eternal war. Wars will never end, but hopefully the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will make civilized nations at least prosecute non nuclear wars-- AND limit them in as much as possible to not involve non combatants. Most of all, you never want to be on the losing end of a war. Would the US have won WW2 without the A Bombs-- of course. Would there have been more casualties from an invasion or even a continued blockade and strangulation type naval seige of Nippon? Maybe. All tha matters is that we won. We won with minimal Allied casualties. I pray for the souls of those innocents that died in the blasts...But face the facts... More innocents -- more people died from the carpet bombing, round the clock raids-- especially the firebombing raids the Allies perfected than Fat Man and Little Boy killed... To the victors goes the spoils...

[Terran]

And I've gone off topic. Theres a lot in that I would like to respond to...but like you mentioned it was off topic ....so if you want to start a thread reguarding the use of nuclear weapons in the "war against terrorism" I would be willing to address certain issues you bring up..... but any further discussion of that would ruin the topic of this thread....so I hope any other discussion reguarding the nuclear weapons and terrorism war will end after my post so things get back on topic.... The other stuff you said of course would still be okay to discuss.... ....Make war so horrible through victory that people will not want to prosecute it again...War to the knife, the knife to the hilt, eh? That being said, as long as there are two people on this mudball called Earth, then there will be eternal war. I agree with you in the extent of the logic your using... War to the Knife, the knife to the hilt.... but Part of the probelm though nuclear weapons usherd in an era of scientific and military dominance... It started with Nukes....then tactical missles...stealth bombers...laser guided this and that....automated robotic dead zones... This technology was concentrated in few counties/powers... So suddenly any given country has much less human investment in enforcing its will... So once someone has less human investment any "War" takes on a different meaning...because with less investment you can engage in much more frivolous actions...to bring up a poker analogy... You can bluff your level of commitment....you can throw in lots of power(chips) but you wont go all in because you either didnt really care enough about it to begin with, you werent willing to risk a portion of your power, or are afraid to lose power in the face of close competitors....... Gah Im getting a bit to drunk... So to get this post back on direct thread course Bottom line: I think that ultimately the Nukes used on Japan make historical sense... even though ridiculously horrible... but any correlation to today is a weakly strewn connection...

[Danny]

i think this thread is honestly making people a little nuts.

[Terran]

i think this thread is honestly making people a little nuts. Thats what the evil gremlin in the corner of my room has been screaming at me for weeks about....

[coma]

i think this thread is honestly making people a little nuts. I also would like to increase my post count with unrelated asides ...Castro reccomended to Kruschev that they use the nuclear missles against the U.S. and when asked if he would have risked total destuction of Cuba; he said of course. ...Castro was ready and willing to bring the temple down if not for the Kennedy administration's handling of the situation. I would like to know the source of that information. Not saying it's not true, but Castro probably wouldn't admit that (destryong Cuba to save it). Run (don't walk) and go get Alex Jones The Fog of War. Brilliantly engaging stuff. Alex Jones is interesting but a little too much Illumanati for me. Much sounds convincing but much is also a little whacked out for me. Frankly, I don't believe anyone anymore. But I might check out the fog of war anyway. Another interesting note on South Vietnam; the United States viewed the Vietnam War as an extension of the Cold War (as you mention); when in reality it was the North Vietnamese fighting for their own freedoms (This too is covered in the film). This is where Understanding your enemy comes into play. Ho Chi Minh petioned the UN repeatedly to let him join to be recognized. He was denied/ignored. His brand of communism was very unlike Soviet and China. The Gov claimed communism was monolithic so therefore Vietnam and China would be allies. Thats utterly stupid on the face because they expelled France, eventually the US AND CHINA. (not tom mention China and UUSR hated each other) They had no kind of friendly relationship with China. Their brand of Communism was based on eradication of Foreign exploitation and National Unity. Not collective farming and imperialist expansion. Its just like "they hate our frredoms". Pay no attention to their actual reason and just paste over something convienient. So the reason for Vietnam war was a proxy war like Korea was actually a war against China. But a Proxy against what? They had no allies, except maybe Laos and that was only in spirit and border infiltration by The Viet Minh. The parallels of that conflct and the current are numerous; Manufactured rationale (WMDs-Gulf of Tonkin) Persistence in tactics/Ideology Fighting them there so we dont fight them here aka destrying a country to fight someone else. Do you think the Japanese would have stopped if those bombs were not dropped on them? There was some earlir discussion on that, but the answer usually is yes. They had no resources. Their oil was depleated. The national will was gone. Civilians were in terror. The Army was scattered in disarray (POW, all over the pacific and China/Indochina). The main concern was mass casulties on The US side and the probable mass scale killin of civilians ecspecially if compelled to fight (Women, Small children, the very old)

[Terran]

There was some earlir discussion on that, but the answer usually is yes. They had no resources. Their oil was depleated. The national will was gone. Civilians were in terror. The Army was scattered in disarray (POW, all over the pacific and China/Indochina). The main concern was mass casulties on The US side and the probable mass scale killin of civilians ecspecially if compelled to fight (Women, Small children, the very old) Grave of the Fireflies is an awsome movie....horribly sad... Plot Outline A tragic film covering a young boy and his little sister's struggle to survive in Japan during World War II. All stuff before nukeage.... really awsome movie...

[Mutineer]

I would like to know the source of that information. Not saying it's not true, but Castro probably wouldn't admit that (destryong Cuba to save it). The source was Robert McNamara speaking regarding a meeting they had many years later (1991 I think) and the source was directly from the Cat's mouth; Castro himself. Alex Jones is interesting but a little too much Illumanati for me. Much sounds convincing but much is also a little whacked out for me. Frankly, I don't believe anyone anymore. But I might check out the fog of war anyway. I apologize; I meant Errol Morris. Why I said Alex jones is a mystery (My brain lately ). - On Vietnam I think you may be missing my point. What you have stated is more or less correct (If not a bit flamboyant) in the eyes of the West. In the eyes of North Vietnam, that couldn't be farther from the truth. N Vietnam could have given a rats ass about our reasons for war. They simply wanted their independence. We could sing and dance all day long about why we were fighting the war. That was my point; understanding the enemy. We had no idea why North Vietnam was fighting other than what we perceived as a threat and what we assumed an extension of the U.S.S.R. It wasn't an extension; it was our own paranoia