Untold History of the United States

[tattuchu]

Sandinista, I can't see your post WITH ALL THE FLAGS WAVING IN MY FACE.

Who the fuck is waving a flag?? Who here is claiming anything honorable or glorious about the bombs? Not me. I'm sure not saying it was one of America's prouder moments (Sandi probably thinks I am, but he does not know how to think). I'm only saying that they were necessary evils, and by far the lesser evil compared with the other choice. There was no good choice, unfortunately.

And you again ducked the question about what would've been a better thing to do. So all you're doing is reacting to history with emotion rather than objective thought, i.e. you're just whining.

He's just compensating for not having a clue by making himself look foolish. It's the best he can do.

Ian, I don't know what would've been a better thing to do. I don't know enough about the situation to even hazard a guess. All I'm saying is that the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is not the way to go. That has nothing to do with hindsight. It should never have been considered a legitimate option to begin with. You may not consider it honorable or glorious what we did, but you still rationalize it and defend it. What we did is simply indefensible.
What about setting off one of the bombs offshore as an example of what we were capable of? Wasn't that an option that was discussed at the time? You asked for an alternative. That seems like a good one to me. Why was that ruled out?

Zilla, I don't know what clue I need to have. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is wrong, and it's not the sort of thing the United States should be doing. It betrays our own ideals. I don't know why it's foolish to say that murder is wrong. The end doesn't justify the means. If we murder, then we become the enemy. The enemy is us. This country should be better than that. It's supposed to be. It's meant to be.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Zilla, I don't know what clue I need to have. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is wrong, and it's not the sort of thing the United States should be doing. It betrays our own ideals. I don't know why it's foolish to say that murder is wrong. The end doesn't justify the means. If we murder, then we become the enemy. The enemy is us. This country should be better than that. It's supposed to be. It's meant to be.

Tat, you should be happy you've never been in a war. This one was a war of survival, our system versus theirs. It was a war without mercy. We couldn't fight with kid gloves on, the enemy wasn't.

[sandinista]

[Svartalf]

Zilla, I don't know what clue I need to have. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is wrong, and it's not the sort of thing the United States should be doing. It betrays our own ideals. I don't know why it's foolish to say that murder is wrong. The end doesn't justify the means. If we murder, then we become the enemy. The enemy is us. This country should be better than that. It's supposed to be. It's meant to be.

Tat, you should be happy you've never been in a war. This one was a war of survival, our system versus theirs. It was a war without mercy. We couldn't fight with kid gloves on, the enemy wasn't.

Shut up you uncouth barbarian, and go build me that bridge across the Kwai.

[sandinista]

the humor is neverending...zilla "ah man like believe me, i was in the war man!" Of course, Oliver Stone was also in the war, so I guess we should all believe him as well. The reasoning is rock solid here.

[Coito ergo sum]

Sandi's claim that the bombs were "indefensible in any way" only shows the intellectual level he's operating on. Which is to say that he believes what he wants to believe, and there's no way facts are going to convince him otherwise.

I don't think you should make claims that equally describe yourself and others. You believe what you want to believe, and facts will never convince you otherwise. I mean, for you to say that is, perhaps the most laughable thing you've ever written. Ians definition of "facts"...what I believe are the "facts" anything that counters that equals "not facts", fucking laughable. I would say that goes to show what intellectual level you are operating on but I have known for a long time what intellectual (using that term lightly) level you operate on. Resorting to personal attacks? Ian? wow shocker.

Actually, it's a little different than that. Even based on the factual assertions you make, the bomb droppings are defensible. Your position, however, seems to ignore facts rather than refute them as incorrect.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actually, it's a little different than that. Even based on the factual assertions you make, the bomb droppings are defensible. Your position, however, seems to ignore facts rather than refute them as incorrect.

They never come up with an alternative that results in fewer casualties. This murderous attitude is worrisome.

[Coito ergo sum]

Wouldn't it have been possible, theoretically, to blockade Japan until they surrendered? Maintaining the air and sea superiority you had would not have been a problem. You could have engaged in a strategic bombing campaign that would cripple their industrial centres while minimizing civilian casualties, dropped propaganda pamphlets over densely populated areas with 'care packages' of food and medical supplies encouraging the Japanese people to surrender, and perhaps the empire would have collapsed from within inside of a year.

So, rather than drop 2 atomic bombs on them, we should blockade the millions of japanese civilians on the island and starve them out in a siege? What of their medical supplies and food? Would we then make embargo exceptions for humanitarian aid, and then set up a long term siege where we feed, clothe and medically treat the Japanese, but box them in indefinitely while they engage in guerrilla warfare for years on end?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Wouldn't it have been possible, theoretically, to blockade Japan until they surrendered? Maintaining the air and sea superiority you had would not have been a problem. You could have engaged in a strategic bombing campaign that would cripple their industrial centres while minimizing civilian casualties, dropped propaganda pamphlets over densely populated areas with 'care packages' of food and medical supplies encouraging the Japanese people to surrender, and perhaps the empire would have collapsed from within inside of a year.

So, rather than drop 2 atomic bombs on them, we should blockade the millions of japanese civilians on the island and starve them out in a siege? What of their medical supplies and food? Would we then make embargo exceptions for humanitarian aid, and then set up a long term siege where we feed, clothe and medically treat the Japanese, but box them in indefinitely while they engage in guerrilla warfare for years on end?

Ah, c'mon, we've already been accused of genocide, why not actually do the deed?

[Coito ergo sum]

So we can do whatever we like, then, no matter how heinous, because we're the United States and that makes it okay. We make our own rules *waves flag*

No, who said that? The dropping of the bombs was actually a less brutal option than finishing the war without them.

With this sort of attitude, we fucking deserved 9-11

I hope Iran makes some nuclear bombs and annihilates our piece of shit country. The last survivors will say, "Hey, that's not fair! Only we get to use nuclear bombs!" And they'll say that right before their skin sloughs off and the last of us fucking retards die of radiation poisoning. And we'll fucking deserve it, every fucking inch of it

Why would we deserve it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

So we can do whatever we like, then, no matter how heinous, because we're the United States and that makes it okay. We make our own rules *waves flag*

No, who said that? The dropping of the bombs was actually a less brutal option than finishing the war without them.

With this sort of attitude, we fucking deserved 9-11

I hope Iran makes some nuclear bombs and annihilates our piece of shit country. The last survivors will say, "Hey, that's not fair! Only we get to use nuclear bombs!" And they'll say that right before their skin sloughs off and the last of us fucking retards die of radiation poisoning. And we'll fucking deserve it, every fucking inch of it

Why would we deserve it?

And why would it be good to nuke women and children and old folks because we nuked women and children and old folks?

[Coito ergo sum]

Are we or are we not the good guys? ARE WE OR ARE WE NOT THE FUCKING GOOD GUYS? If we're not the good guys, then take the goddamn Constitution and the Bill of Rights and throw them in the fucking trash because they're worthless.

It would have been worse not to drop them. Aren't you listening? The premise is that the bombs ended the war sooner and with fewer lives lost. How is that bad?

You can obviously take issue with the premise, if you like. Are you? If so, what's your argument?

[Coito ergo sum]

Prove to me that they weren't ready to surrender, not just idle speculation, prove it.

Prove the negative?

If a country is ready to surrender they do one or more of the following:

1. Cable or otherwise communicate with their adversary and say "we surrender."
2. Lay down their arms, and put up white flags.
3. Stop shooting.
4. Come out with their hands up.

It looks kind of like this --







So, since Japan was not apparently or evidently or demonstrably doing anything that looked like, sounded like or smelled like they were surrendering, then there was no reason to conclude that they were, in fact, surrendering.

[Coito ergo sum]

The bombs were a despicable and horrific way of ending the war quickly. Many, many more hundreds of thousands of people would have died had the war dragged on

Prove it.

The bombs were dropped August 6, and August 9. Soviet Union invaded Manchuria August 9.

Emperor Hirohito announced Japan's surrender August 15. Surrender papers signed on September 2 aboard the USS Missouri.

So, the war did, in fact, end quickly, as long as 6 days after the Nagasaki bomb can be agreed upon as "quickly." If you think it's not "quickly" to end the war in 6 days, then I guess we're at an impasse.

The many hundreds of thousands dying as a result of continued war, the history of the Pacific war until that point, which demonstrates that every step of the way the war was a meatgrinder where Allied troops died in huge numbers, and Japanese troops in even bigger numbers (when we won) and the Japanese tended to fight to the death. Adding up the 2,000,000 troops and many more times that civilians that were evidently bracing for the continued war, reasonable estimates put the death toll in the millions. So, based on the experience of warring with the Japanese over the previous 4 years, and based on the projections of allied forces relative to the invasion of Honshu, the equation can be seen as (a) a couple of hundred thousand dying due to the bombs and the war ending quickly, vs (b) millions dead in a long drawn out affair of firebombings, flamethrowing caves and bunkers and burning people alive, massive house to house fighting against soldiers, women, teenagers, etc., and mass starvation, dehydration and disease depopulating Honshu.

I suppose one could advocate (c) which is -- just stop warring right then on August 1-ish 1945, and let the Japanese be at that point, or (d) blockade the island and force them to capitulate by a massive siege.

Nobody has yet expressly offered (c) and tattuchu offered (d) but that option, it seems pretty obvious, would result in a situation where the US opts to starve out the civilian population of Honshu, which to me seems worse than the bombs. But, I guess everyone can have their own view on that. I'd like to hear the argument in favor of starving out the population in order to make them surrender as being preferable to the bombs, though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Reading Japan's Longest Day would help clear up a lot of confusion on this topic.