Author Topic: History: Atomic bombs. (Read 5329 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #60 on:** January 23, 2004, 01:05:00 PM »

miko, you said "if there were any actual launches". You were calling into question the credibility of many reports by the US military over many years. That none were successful can't automatically be attributed to their propaganda purposes intent.

I will attribute their failure rather to their inferior capability as compared to the counter measures used to defeat them. I suspect you find this even more distatseful than your imagined slight of me calling you a liar.

misread what you said, you called me a liar. Even if only for pointing out what you said. Talk about double talk

miko2d · « **Reply #61 on:** January 23, 2004, 01:37:13 PM »

Since you admit misreading my post, I am happy to edit out my statements and express my regret in calling you a liar.
Please be more carefull reading and I will try to write posts that are more clear.

I said "if there were actual launches" to express my general mistrust to any government propaganda but I admit that it could be misleading even though I proceeded talking about those firing as actual events righ after that.
I did not doubt much that iraqi fired at our planes or at least fired something that could be construed as a fire on our planes.

Though as the example of our canadian friends indicate, there is a very wide margin of what US pilots would swear to as a hostile fire. Even if the canadians were really firing straight up - which they didn't, there was no chance for their bullets would have even come close to the altitude the US planes were travelling.

You did not point what I said but took my words out of context that directly contradicted your assertion about those words but let's not dwell on it any firther. As I've said, I regret that we went over to personal insults.

I will attribute their failure rather to their inferior capability as compared to the counter measures used to defeat them.

Which capability did not prevent the iraqis shoting down or damaging the whole bunch of US aircraft during the war and hiting a few more after teh war was won.

Anyway, if we believe the assertion that the iraqi in 12 years of trying could not even shoot down a single enemy plane because of inferior capabilities of their military, how does it fit with your assertion that we should have taken seriously Saddam Hussein's alleged plans to capture the whole middle east and then attack the US of A?

This suggestion of yours about inferior capabilities may actually be as valid as my suggestion that they never tried to shoot down a plane anyway.
What I find distastefull is that in view of either or both of those options - of which at least one must be true - that our government presented iraq as a real and imminent danger.

That they claimed Iraq was on a verge of creation a sophisticated nuclear device and a delivery system while failing - or not willing - to effectively deploy a simple AA weapon.

Whether they never wanted to hurt us or could not possibly do so or both, which is most likely - there is no danger.

I can easily see why Saddam's statements quoted by US media and government do not add up. Because some of them were intended purely for domestic consumption (to keep up his popularity) and some were real desperate plea to US and UN from a powerless and cornered looser begging to leave him alone in return for anything but his throne.

I find planry of discrepancies in the coalition accounts of the events and situation. While every single case seems to make sense, taken together they make no sense whatsoever.

Anyway, we seem to have forgotten Japan altogether and switched to Iraq and I sorry I ever dragged Iraq into this.
I just wanted to illustrate that US government used alleged abilities of each of those countries to inflict huge damage on US as an excuse for some drastic action while neither of them could do anything to us or anyone else.

miko

AKIron · « **Reply #62 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:00:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Anyway, if we believe the assertion that the iraqi in 12 years of trying could not even shoot down a single enemy plane because of inferior capabilities of their military, how does it fit with your assertion that we should have taken seriously Saddam Hussein's alleged plans to capture the whole middle east and then attack the US of A?

miko

miko, nowhere have I ever said Iraq was planning an attack on the USA, don't become guilty of what you accused me.

However, to claim that Saddam had no intentions of conquest in the middle east is to ignore his war with Iran and then later his conquest of Kuwait. Do you think he would have been satisfied to stop there?

Back to Japan. If not for their certainty of utter and catastrophic defeat, who knows how long they may have recognized their own uncondtional surrender terms? We have only to look back so far as WWI to see how an unresolved conflict can lead to further hostilities.

As I said before, killing women and children is a heavy burden to bear and in many cases an unforgiveable atrocity. However, in this case, it may have and likely did, imo, save so many more of the same making it forgiveable.

qts · « **Reply #63 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:27:16 PM »

A friend of mine fought in WW2 and was interned in Changi. He never said anything about the war, but he never, ever, bought anything made in Japan.

miko2d · « **Reply #64 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:30:50 PM »

AKIron: miko, nowhere have I ever said Iraq was planning an attack on the USA, don't become guilty of what you accused me.

I was not accusing you of it but the establishment propaganda. In my view such an assumption would logically follow from some of your statements but it is very different of accusing a person of holding an explicit opinion.

However, to claim that Saddam had no intentions of conquest in the middle east is to ignore his war with Iran

You really think that Saddam with his 8 million suni arabs wanted to rule over 60 million milirant shia persians who hated his guts and used their children for minesweepers - in additoion to preserving tenuous hold over 8 million kurds and 15 million hostile shia arabs?
In my opinion it was a minor land grab - a few square miles of oil-rich dirt, not a start of a world-domination conquest.

and then later his conquest of Kuwait. Do you think he would have been satisfied to stop there?

I've done some study on why and how he came to attack Kuwait. Not only the capture of a tiny Kuwait does not necessarily constitute a conquest, Iraq had serious issues with Kuwait that it tried to resolve for a while and asked US help in that. The actions of Kuwait were really hurting Iraq's economy (cheating on oil quotas) and there was that slant drilling into the Iraqi oil fields...

It seems to me that US gave Iraq assurances not to interfere if Kuwait refused to resolve the issues through negotiations while at teh same time it told Kuwait that it will protect it if it did not show up for negotiations. It seems to me that Iraq and Kuwait were duped into having a war so that an issue of concern could be found to replace the disappearing Cold War.

Back to Japan. If not for their certainty of utter and catastrophic defeat, who knows how long they may have recognized their own uncondtional surrender terms? We have only to look back so far as WWI to see how an unresolved conflict can lead to further hostilities.

The WWI conflict was thoughrouly resolved. It was the changes in world trade and monetary system of mid-20s and 1930s that caused the raise of militaristic nationalist factions in Germany and Italy.
It was not even the hyper-inflation of early 20s that caused the problems, whatever some economists claim. And revival of european colonialism.
Germany was totally surrendered, demilitarised and rendered impotent, what more would you want from it to have the conflict "resolved"? Split apart? Joined into some "peacefull" colection of disparate mutually-hating nations under one government like Ygoslavia was?

It is BS that the WWI was a direct cause of WWII. The facism did not raise for a long while after it was over, as well as hyper-inflation, etc.

As I said before, killing women and children is a heavy burden to bear and in many cases an unforgiveable atrocity. However, in this case, it may have and likely did, imo, save so many more of the same making it forgiveable.

We will never know for sure. What I know after getting those quotes from knowlegeable people is that I am less sure than I ever was.

miko

AKcurly · « **Reply #65 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:40:09 PM »

Miko2d,

With all due respect, you are uninformed. You are missing a great deal of information.

1. Japanese pilot Mitsuo Fuchida told Paul Tibbets (of Enola Gay fame) "You did the right thing ... The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."

2. The Soviets took 700,000 Japanese prisoners to the Gulag never to be seen again (p299/'FlyBoys')

3. The Japanese killed 30,000,000 Chinese; 4,000,000 Indonesians; 1,800,000 Indians (p300/'Flyboys')

4. The number of Japanese civilians killed by atomic bombs was tiny compared to the number of Japanese civilians killed by ordinary 'fire bombs.'

I could add many more items, but they're about the same. No one (allies or axis) behaved in a civilized manner during WW2. Both sides (including Japan, Great Britain, Russia, America) comitted atrocities against civilians.

Miko2d, clearly you want to say things that will place America in an unfavorable light. That's fine ... if it itches, scratch it. However, you really need to stop looking at WW2 - the Americans were mere amateurs in the atrocity business compared to the Germans, Japanese and Soviets.

If you want to "dig up dirt" on America, you need to go back to earlier American history, say 1800 to 1890 and read about American indigenous populations, Mexicans and Filipinos. However, you should be warned that American was primarily settled by Europeans.

curly

qts · « **Reply #66 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:40:20 PM »

Quote

Quoting miko2d
You really think that Saddam with his 8 million suni arabs wanted to rule over 60 million milirant shia persians

No, but he wanted Kuwaiti and probably Saudi Arabia.

Scootter · « **Reply #67 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:48:17 PM »

I always wondered what would have happened to the remains of the weapon if the unproven, never droped bomb failed to work.

"a big uh oh fellows"

any thoughts on the outcome of this situation?

It was a very large possability that we could have droped the worlds total supply of usable Plutonium (2nd bomb "Fat Man") into the lap of the enamy, who really could have used it.

They had most of the drawings and work from the Germans on the Atomic Bomb.

Just a wierd thought

kappa · « **Reply #68 on:** January 23, 2004, 02:50:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by qts
No, but he wanted Kuwaiti and probably Saudi Arabia.

That argument could be taken far.. If SH did infact invade kuwait and saudi that could have been better for us than the first gulf war.. Saudi and Iraqi at war could possibly lead to 9/11 never happening.. Why attack america when at war with iraqi...

My understanding of this thread was not so much the nessasity of dropping both bombs on Japan, but rather the reasons put forth by the american government as to why they were..

I think it more than demostrated the lengths in which the american government will go to legitamize its actions.. No matter the cost or reasoning..

miko2d · « **Reply #69 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:13:36 PM »

AKcurly: With all due respect, you are uninformed. You are missing a great deal of information.

I knew about what you posted. I do not see how it should have affected my decision to post the quotes of the americans.

1. Japanese pilot Mitsuo Fuchida told Paul Tibbets (of Enola Gay fame) "You did the right thing ... The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."

I lived in such society. Soviets were saying in 1939 that they will fight to the death - they believed it to such extent that the POWs were treated as traitors. Once Germans invades, 5 million surrendered within the first 4 months.
When I was leaving Soviet Union in 1989, many people were telling me I was a traitor and the communist ideals are bound to prevail in the near future.
2 years later there was no Soviet Union or communist ideals. Do not eblieve everything everybody said. Always check how it fiots with the other facts.

I would never argue that Russians and other were commiting more atrocities than Amaricans.
So what? I am living in America now and I am interested that it took lessons from the past and got better than it is - even if it's not such a bad country to live in.

As for earlier american history and atrocities in Phillipines in 1898 war - I mentioned that in my posts. I do not care if this country has a deservedely bad reputation for it's sordid past. What's dome is done. I care that people knew history and hopefully we all had a better future.

I am studying european history as a precursor of american one as much as time allows.

I've seen the textbooks and media coverage of history. It does not even closely indicate that there was a controversy or that some events could have easily turned the other way around. From teh history books it seems that US was developing along sone God-given plan and no human made any difference. That kind of promotes an uncritical attitude in people - either "we cannot chane anything" or "government knows better".

qts: No, but he wanted Kuwaiti and probably Saudi Arabia.

Says you. It does not make any sense for him to want SA and he mostly wanted Kuwait to stop ruining Iraq's economy by cheating on oil production quotas and stop stealing iraqi oil.

miko

AKWeav · « **Reply #70 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:13:37 PM »

Quote

So why did they surrender after the atomic bombings? Here was a great chance for them to die if they wished.

They surrendered because their divine emporer told them "they must endure the unendurable".

Regurge · « **Reply #71 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:28:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
The point is that the immediate surrender of japanese was not necessary. They could have been blockaded into submission for months or even years.
[/B]

So during those months or years civilian casualties would somehow cease or be limited to less than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? If the US stopped the firebombings and attacked only military targets and allowed food and medical aid into the Japan, why would they surrender? Why not instead disperse military production into populated areas and focus on kamikaze attacks until we got sick of if and went home. Seems to me if you wanted to increase the death toll on both sides a blockade would be the way to go.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #72 on:** January 23, 2004, 03:53:09 PM »

I'd say avoiding the death of a million people is not an excuse, but a reason.

Btw Miko. You have a bad source you are quoting from. I know a lot of those people you quoted were pro Atom Bomb.

BGBMAW · « **Reply #73 on:** January 23, 2004, 04:45:48 PM »

Quote

BGBMAW: lmfao......a Whole city evaporates......and it takes "several days"...to figure that out?

Quote

It took them at least a day to notice the city was off the comms and a couple of days just to re-establish a contact. It took them a few days to come to the conclusion that it was evaporated by a single bomb rather than a regular massive bombing raid. What's so unbelieveble here?

miko..u are going down hill fast into a dicth

So..it does not take more then 10 minutes to fly over Hiroshima and say.......ya..its all gone..."oh..there commincation lines didnt work..llolololo...i guess they couldnt fly over and look?

Secondly..Are you saying the Japanses didnt knwo therre homeland? dude u are a moron.

So there information services see..HUNDREDS of Bomers in formations during carpet boming of cities daily.. You think the japs didnt notice these planes flying? Hell they were even lo altitudes compared to our heavy bomings in Germany...
but.....did they see hundreds of bomers over Hiro that day....?no

As far as i have read..Enola Gay was not in a HUGE 100 plane plus formation ..was it?

So to say that it took them sveral days to figure this out is to me..dumb as hell

The emperor was a very shelterd man/boy . The mentality of japan was KILL...Kill...and Kill..and surrender is not an option

Love
BiGB
xoxo

Yeager · « **Reply #74 on:** January 23, 2004, 05:40:27 PM »

They could have been blockaded into submission for months or even years.
====
My understanding is that the Japanes population was bordering on starvation in the final 6 months of the war. Imagine an entire national population starving for years.

This discussion is like a perfect circle, it has no beginning and it has no end.