Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on January 22, 2004, 11:16:45 AM
-
Some people I've found in agreement with an opinion I voiced earlier.
Admiral William D. Leahy. 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942–1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945–1949 (Truman):
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. . . . My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow:
". . . I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life. . . . We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything." And – E. B. Potter, naval historian wrote: "Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet:
"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment. . . . It was a mistake ever to drop it . . . (the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. . . . It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."
Rear Admiral Richard Byrd:
"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan. . . . I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from . . . the tight blockade."
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy:
"I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning." [The atomic bomb] "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion . . . it was clear to a number of people . . . that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate . . . it was a sin – to use a good word – [a word that] should be used more often – to kill non-combatants. . . ."
Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945):
"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb . . . the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China:
"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.
". . . [F]rom the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell. . . ."
Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy.
"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it. . . . I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."
Arnold, quoted by Eaker:
"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is that the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively if the Commander in Chief decides to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."
General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific, when asked whether using the atomic bomb had been a wise decision.
"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."
W. Averill Harriman, in private notes after a dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz (commander in July 1945 of the Pacific-based US Army Strategic Air Forces), and Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general in Europe, Frederick L. Anderson:
"...Both felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why a second bomb was used."
General Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"I voiced to him [Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum of loss of 'face'. . . . It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."
former President Herbert Hoover:
"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."
Richard M. Nixon:
"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it. . . . He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants. . . . MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him
-
Is cut and paste allowed? I know it's not if your quoting a Dem. How about in this case?
-
If they were ready to surrender then why didn't they do so after Hiroshima? Instead, they waited to see if we had only the one bomb.
-
I agree.
If indeed the truth of the matter was that Japan was near defeat and that a massive invasion resulting in the loss of 100,000 US Troops was not necessary to win that war, then yes, I disagree with the use of the bomb.
I seem to recall that Japan was warned several times of impending doom if they did not surrender...still, the loss of innocent people, especially children, is brutal.
-
AKIron: If they were ready to surrender then why didn't they do so after Hiroshima?
Too bad those people I've quoted are already dead to realise the extent of their ignorance and stupidity and proclaim you the unquestionable genius of all times and people. With their endorcement you could have run for a president and won by a landslide. :)
Little did they know it was so simple. Or maybe they had their priorities wrong. They cared about defeating Japan without invasion and expense of american lives and without commiting atrocities and unnecesarily killing civilians that were supposed to became our friends as soon as we sorted out their evil governments. Little did they know that the USA would crumble if the Japan did not capitulate within a week...
Instead, they waited to see if we had only the one bomb.
How about the fact that it took japanese several days just to realise what the heck happened after one of their cities suddenly stopped responding to the phone calls in the middle of a disastorous war.
More people died in firebombings of Tokio than from any nuclear strike. Japain was quite a mess at the time and not easy to sort out.
Hirosima could have been destroyed even more thoughrouly by a massive conventional bombing strike. The only question was the incredible claims by survivors that it was caused by a single bomb. Such claims take time to get verified in bureaucratic systems on the verge of collapce.
Besides, the second bomb was of a different design which was not tested on a proving range. Probably the japanese wanted to see if the plutonium bomb would work as well as the uranium one. Out of scientific curiosity.
Rude: If indeed the truth of the matter was that...
There is no such thing as truth - at least not in a sense that we would know it and know it is truth. All I have offered is the educated personal opinions of people with some expertise in the subject.
The only thing this post proves is that the issue of dropping bombs was very controversial even at the time they were dropped and anyone who says so in not an ignorant idiot - like real ignorant idiots (who probably have never heard about those people, let alone their opinions), have claimed on this board.
miko
-
No need to get yer panties all in a wad there miko. I'm just stating the obvious. If they were ready to surrender then 3 days was more than long enough to do so after losing a city. They were certainly able to do so quickly enough after Nagasaki.
BTW, anyone that says there no such thing as "truth" in my book is an "idiot".
-
Repost.
-
Miko makes a point here. One of the reasons stated for dropping the bomb was to show the Japanese the power of the weapon we had. Now why not drop it away from the population, but close enough to see what the weapon could do? I see no reason to drop the first one on a population of that many. The reason for dropping the first one was to show them what we could do to them.
If after that they gave no response, then you could make the argument that you are not going to send all those soldiers to die invading Japan.
We could sit here and make point after point, but you can never unring a bell.
-
If you had only 2 bullets, against your opponents many arrows...would you shoot one in the air thinking "that should frighten them into surrendering!" ??
I wouldn't. I'd use one. Then, if they still showed no sign of giving up, I'd use the other...
-
Excellent post Miko..
These facts went a long way in the order of making me rethink my learned History book History in high school.. My truths I learned, I learned later were not truths..
Some say the bombs were the beginning of american imperialism.... And in this context its hard to argue against that view point after the second bomb was dropped..
btw Miko... Have you ever read anything by Gore Vidal?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
If you had only 2 bullets, against your opponents many arrows...would you shoot one in the air thinking "that should frighten them into surrendering!" ??
I wouldn't. I'd use one. Then, if they still showed no sign of giving up, I'd use the other...
Well, in order for you analogy to work.. They must be majic bullets.. or your opponents must be weilding sharp fingernails.. 8)
-
2 bullets huh? Sure. Like we couldn't have had another in short time. So you are saying that if they didn't surrender after the second we wouldn't have had another one in short time? Seems that we were able to produce quite a few of them by 1950, no?
-
There are a lot of historians that believe a major factor in the decision to drop the bomb was to end the war with Japan before Russia got involved. Truman had by this time seen the iron curtain falling in eastern Europe and wanted to end the war without the same thing happening in Asia. It is obviously still debateable whether the dropping of the bomb was justified, but it is something that should be considered beyond the purely military reasons that you are trying to debunk.
-
Lance got this one, somewhat! It is true one of the decisions to drop the bomb was to keep russia from occupying post war japan. The japanese wanted to surrender but not to the terms the americans had set (unconditional)
We would have lost well over 250,000 Marines and soldiers during the invasion. The japs were in fact still willing to fight to the last man and woman. That was proven in the invasion of Okinawa. (25,000 dead even more casualties)
My second point would be this.....We killed more people in the fire bombing of tokyo than both A-Bombs COMBINED and the japs really didnt even wince. They were still fighting!
people who want to say in retrospect that it was "inhumane" and "barbaric" need to realize it was a different time and a different war. There were many atrocities during the entire war and in my opinion the A-bombs would be at the BOTTOM of the list.
-
Little did they know that the USA would crumble if the Japan did not capitulate within a week...
Miko care to elaborate on this statement. I'm very curious about how this is true?
-
How many of these quotes were made after the war? Hindsight is not of much use. It's easy for these guys to wash their hands of the bombing after the war - "If it had been up to me, we wouldn't have nuked Japan".
The same kind of things are now said about the allied bombing of German civilian areas, raids which were sometimes more deadly than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Bomber Harris is looked upon as a killer. But during the war, enough people thought it was a good way to bring victory sooner, so it was adapted as a strategy.
ra
-
AKIron: No need to get yer panties all in a wad there miko. I'm just stating the obvious. If they were ready to surrender then 3 days was more than long enough to do so after losing a city.
I am not trying to be offensive. Maybe funny beyong my ability but not offensive. I've read an account of japanese actions on acertaining the damage from Hiroshima.
It took them a few days just to realise that the connecttion with the city is not being restored and send someone by car to find out why the hell it takes so long to fix a damn cable, bombing raids or no.
When the low-level functionary came back with the stories by deranged survivors that the city was obliterated by one bomb - which he had trouble believing himelf, a some kind of commission was formed and sent to investigate and after a few days to report to the brass which in turn passed it to the top command and emperor.
By the time Nagasaki happened they just learned what they were dealing with.
As Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss said. "it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning".
BTW, anyone that says there no such thing as "truth" in my book is an "idiot".
The issue is not whether there is truth. The problem is how does one know that he finally knows the truth.
Anyone who says he is sure which piece of knowlege is truth is as much an idiot as a person who denies the existance of truth.
kappa: btw Miko... Have you ever read anything by Gore Vidal?
No. I only started to get seriously interested in social studies three years ago when my first son was conceived. With children, my reading dropped from few hundred pages a day to just few hundred a month.
I have a few feet of books from Aristhotel to Mises and Rothbard on my shalf that I have not read yet. I will probably get to Vidal by the time I retire... :)
Ripsnort; If you had only 2 bullets,...
The point those gentlemen were asserting was that US had Japan utterly defeated and could take time to end the war without much bloodshed.
Even using the "bullet" coudl have been more productive if the japanese were told what to expect or geien more time to acertain the damages. Also, US had about 17 nukes by the end of 1945 from what I've read. Once you get the hang of it, they are not difficult to make when you have billions of dollars and hundreds of thousand people wroking on it.
kappa: Excellent post Miko..
...making me rethink my learned History
That's the attitude! :D
You deserve a bonus. Watch my thread on Galileo.
miko
-
Originally posted by Lance
There are a lot of historians that believe a major factor in the decision to drop the bomb was to end the war with Japan before Russia got involved. Truman had by this time seen the iron curtain falling in eastern Europe and wanted to end the war without the same thing happening in Asia. It is obviously still debateable whether the dropping of the bomb was justified, but it is something that should be considered beyond the purely military reasons that you are trying to debunk.
Iron Curtain in Europe in July-August 1945?! You mean during the Potsdam conference?...
If they wanted to end the war berore USSR interfered - then why did they force Stalin to promise to start a war against Japan no later then the Victory in Europe?
There is a point of view that the last straw that made Japanese surrender was the Soviet Manchutian operation. I doubt that "allies" could defeat Quantung army without Soviet help.
And another point, used by Soviet propaganda, but never used in "official" history: the Bomb was dropped to scare Stalin and make USSR agree on some vital things in Potsdam.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
kappa: Excellent post Miko..
...making me rethink my learned History
That's the attitude! :D
You deserve a bonus. Watch my thread on Galileo.
miko
Awwww! A liberal and a "liberaltarian" getting all saucey! Isn't it wonderful? :D
-
Of course, all of this would be moot had Pearl Harbor never happened.
-
banana: Of course, all of this would be moot had Pearl Harbor never happened.
And that would not have happened if FDR did not sign the Smoot-Hawley tariff act which propmpted world-wide curtailment of trade and left Japan unable to trade for resources it critically needed to survive.
"When goods are not crossing broders, armies do."
miko
-
Miko makes a point here. One of the reasons stated for dropping the bomb was to show the Japanese the power of the weapon we had. Now why not drop it away from the population, but close enough to see what the weapon could do?
-
The choice of citys was questionable. They picked hiroshima because it was built in a natural crater so it would make the damage even more impressive in order to scare the russians. The thing was hiroshima had about 10k reserve troops stationed. Its main draw for people was the fact that is was a historically renouned city for education(like oxford), so they sent their children there in order to avoid the firebombings in the major citys that had military targets.
So we ended up nukeing a town half full of children and the rest were women. with about 8k troops going up with them.
I still think we should have dropped the bomb in order to end the war, but i question where and how we used it.
If you ever get the chance to visit japan make sure you stop by hiroshima and check out the memorial.
And rip, its more like you have 2 bullets but your oppenent that has arrows already has most of his bones broken and is lieing on the floor bleeding to death.
-
Miko, since you obviously know a little about this, surely you're aware that the real catalyst was the cutting off of crude oil shipments to Japan in retaliation for their invasion of China.
The IJN navy only had reserves for about another 6 months, and it was a case of "Now or never" that they presented to the government as the reason to head south into the rich oil regions of Dutch South East Indies.
Of course, the Japanese could have withdrawn from China and the Emperor could have broken his traditional silence and spoken out against the aggressive plans of the Imperial Army General Staff. Instead, he remained silent, and left Prime Minister Konoye be the one to (unsuccessfully) try to avert the war.
For someone so smart and knowledgeable, I'm disappointed that you're blaming the victim in this case.
-
At that time there were three factions in the Japanese Government. The Emperor, the Military and the Civilian. Trumping each other in that order. The Military WAS NOT ready to surrender and it was only through the intervention of the Emperor AFTER the bombs were dropped that it was brought about.
Even then, in the last days, there was an attempted coup by the Tokyo Military District to stop the announcement of surrender and continue the war.
-
And that would not have happened if FDR did not sign the Smoot-Hawley tariff act which propmpted world-wide curtailment of trade and left Japan unable to trade for resources it critically needed to survive.
The Smoot-Hawley tariff act (signed under President Hoover in 1930, btw) was a procetionist tariff approach to the depression that backfired -- but what does that have to do with WW2? The 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act had already started to undo the damage.
FDRs embargoes, etc. of 1937 over Japan's brutal invasion of China did apply this pressure, but then, about as many (or perhaps even many more) civilians died in the Rape of Nanking as did in both atomic bombings so...
Charon
-
Mitsuo Fuchida, IJN Pilot who led the Pearl Harbor attacks, told Paul Tibbets
"You did the right thing. You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor...Every man, woman, and child would have resisted that invasion with sticks and stones if necessary...Can you imagine what a slaughter it would be to invade Japan? It would have been terrible. The Japanese people know more about that than the American public will ever know."
Secretary of State James Byrnes
(the atom bombs did not cause) "Nearly so many deaths as there would have been had our air force continued to drop incendiary bombs on Japan's cities"
NOTE: In March 1945, Curtis had dropped 13,800 tons of incindairy bombs on Japan, he had planned for more than 115,000 by September
"Evacuate Now!"
Message on leaflets dropped on Hiroshima on August 4th
Curtis LeMay
"Hiroshima brought no instantaneous prostration of the Japanese military. We were still piling on the incendiearies. Our B-29's went to Yawata on August 8th, and burned up 21% of the town, and on the same day some other 29's went to Fukuyama and burned up 73.3%. Still there wasn't any gasp and collapse when the second nuclear bomb went down above Nagasaki on August 9th. We kept on flying."
William Manchester, Marine veteran and historian
"You think of the lives which would have been lost in an invasion of Japan's home islands - a staggering number of Americans but millions more of Japanese - and you thank God for the atomic bomb."
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
"The atomic bomb at Hiroshima was the equivalent of 220 fully loaded B-29's. Accordingly, a single atomic explosion represented no oder-of-magnitude increase in destructiveness over a conventional air raid."
General Yoshijiro Umezu, on August 10th, after the Nagasaki raid
"With luck, we will repulse the invaders before they land."
General Anami, refering to the Potsdam Proclamation, on August 10th
"Who can be 100% sure of defeat? We certainly can't swallow this proclamation."
Paul Fussell, WW2 veteran
"The degree to which Americans register shock and extraordinary shame about the Hiroshima bomb correlates closely with lack of information about the Pacific War."
-
banana: Miko, since you obviously know a little about this, surely you're aware that the real catalyst was the cutting off of crude oil shipments to Japan in retaliation for their invasion of China.
Right. But the reason why Japan became expansionist and went grabbing the resources instead of trading for it like it did before was the breakdown of trade initiated by US.
Britain introduced tariffs which made it impossible for Japan to trade with it's neighbours - which were british colonies.
Japan was encouraged to buy stuff but without being able to seel them manufactured goods - which they really needed - it did not have money. By that time japanese population and industry grew enough (under the coercive influence of foreigners that broke its 200-year isolation) that it could not sustain itself.
So they started foreign agression which in turn promted more trade sanctions etc.
From teh Japanes point of view, if chinese or malayans or vietnamese had to be someone's colonies, they could be colonies of similar asian people next door in a so called "co-prosperity sphere" rather than belong to europeans hald the world away - being forced to sell their respources cheap for overpriced european goods while japanese stuff was right here.
For someone so smart and knowledgeable, I'm disappointed that you're blaming the victim in this case.
I am not blaming a victim. I am explaining what sequence of logical steps necessarily brough the same result in Japan as it did with many other countries ove rthe course in history.
At some point you cannot use a collective label "Japan" and make any sence - though on other more general levels it is quite reasonable.
Japan is not a single mind and never was. Once the europeans cut trade to their colonies, not only did Japan started losing it's economic lifeblood, the industrialist/merchant peacefull trade-oriented faction of japanese started losing its influence in favor of military aggressive clique.
Establishing free trade with Japan on the part of europeans and americans would have likely caused the downfall of the military faction and an end to Japans aggresiveness.
miko
-
Dune: Paul Fussell, WW2 veteran
"The degree to which Americans register shock and extraordinary shame about the Hiroshima bomb correlates closely with lack of information about the Pacific War."
Those guys I quoted did not seem particularly misinformed. So their disagreement must have been caused by some other reason.
You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor...
So why did they surrender after the atomic bombings? Here was a great chance for them to die if they wished.
You see - he specifically says they are ready to die, not "die if it helps to defeat an enemy or even kill some". That is very consisten with a japanese culture of the time.
General Yoshijiro Umezu, on August 10th, after the Nagasaki raid
"With luck, we will repulse the invaders before they land."
Where did I hear that recently? Oh, yeah, that iraqi guy.... :)
You brough valid points but I find the autority (and sincerity) of my quotees to exceed that of yours.
miko
-
Actually, doesn't this all go back to whomever steamed into Tokyo Bay in the late 1800's thus ending Japan's isolation from international affairs?
On second thought, without that, I wouldn't be able to watch "Iron Chef" every Saturday night. :)
-
Originally posted by miko2d
You brough valid points but I find the autority (and sincerity) of my quotees to exceed that of yours.
miko
So the beliefs of these Americas exceed those of one of Japan's most celebrated pilots, the Japanese War Minister and a general on his Cabinet?
How very convenient for you. :aok
-
Originally posted by Dune
So the beliefs of these Americas exceed those of one of Japan's most celebrated pilots, the Japanese War Minister and a general on his Cabinet?
How very convenient for you. :aok
LMAO! :)
-
Dune: So the beliefs of these Americas exceed those of one of Japan's most celebrated pilots, the Japanese War Minister and a general on his Cabinet?
I believe that a high-level general or a politician in posession of intelligence data and aware of a strategic and economic situation may be better informed about situation than a pilot who's only qualification is hand-eye coordination and who has not seen anything beyong his cockpit.
As for the Japanese War Minister, that guy apparently believed that Japan could defeat US when Japan was at the peak of its power and was proven wrong.
When he stated the same with Japan in ruins and US at it's military peak, his credibility was lacking.
How very convenient for you.
It is very convenient for us all that people I cited and others did not believe him. It would have been very unfortunate if the US government believed him and surrendered to Japan in the summer of 1945 after having hjust soundly trashed Japan - just on his say-so. :)
miko
-
I wish the second world war had not happened.
There was an excellent history channel special on a few months back called "the last mission" and it was the story of a B-29 raid to attack a refinery up in northern Japan a few days after the second attack, the Nagasaki atom bomb attack. It detailed how this flight of B-29s triggered a blackout in the imperial palace as they flew overhead towards the target. At that exact time, a rebellion by an entire division of the Japanese army was surrounding the imperial palace as they waited for the tapes of emperors surrender speech to be confiscated and to arrest (and kill if necessary) those army officials following the emperors wish to surrender unconditionally. Unfortunatey for the rebellion and fortunately for the rest of the world, the blackout confused the rebel soldiers long enough for their plans to be discovered and thwarted by a neighboring division under the command of a general in favour with the emperor.
Watch the program if you ever get the chance.
History would seem, on occassion, to suggest what we as individuals want it to in order to fit our own ideals into it.
Again, I wish the Second World War had not happened.
-
Nice mis-direction.
I thought we were talking about whether the US had to drop the bomb. And I posted the beliefs of several high ranking Japanese generals and one of its pilots. They felt they could still win and the pilot said he believed that the Japanese would have still fought. What has that to do with the end of the war?
Of course the Americans didn't feel that way. So what?
And all this misses one other point. LeMay clearly said they would continue the bombings until Japan surrendered. Along with mopping-up operations in the Pacific. So by not waiting the one week, month or several months until convential bombing ended the war, the a-bombs still saved lives. With or without an invasion.
-
I know this is a long read but I thought that it framed quite well the absolute inability for this debate to ever be concluded to everyones perspective.
What Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to me is the pinnacle of destruction, the crowning achievement, of horror on a scale previously unimaginable that the Second World War was, and is.
The only other horror that surpasses the atomic bombings in sheer horror on the battlefield is the Battle for Berlin where 305,00 Russian combatants and 325,00 German combatants and civilians died. 630,000 human beings for a single city. Was the Battle for Berlin even neccessary? Could it have been avoided?
====
http://archive.tri-cityherald.com/BOMB/bomb15.html
Bound by the bomb
Scientists, survivors, veterans debate bomb's morality
Should the atomic bombs have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Attempts to answer the moral questions raised by the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are rooted in a cold-blooded mathematical equation of war.
The rationale is simple: You kill a lot of people now, hoping to save even more lives later.
An estimated 140,000 people were killed at Hiroshima and another 74,000 at Nagasaki. Would an Allied invasion of Japan have been more bloody?
Many factors cloud any calculation:
The battle for the outlying Japanese island of Okinawa a few months earlier killed at least 12,400 Americans, between 100,000 and 127,000 Japanese soldiers and between 70,000 to 80,000 civilians.
About 3,000 kamikaze suicide plane missions were flown at Okinawa, and only a handful of Japanese soldiers surrendered.
More people were killed in the battle for the small island than the combined toll of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What would have happened if Kyushu - the westernmost of Japan's four main islands - was invaded in November 1945 as planned?
Or if the Allies went ahead with plans to invade the main island of Honshu in March 1946?
The Allies estimated between 63,000 to 250,000 of their men would be killed or wounded in the battle for Kyushu - depending on which historian provides the figures. Japanese casualties were expected to be much greater.
Many thousands more would have died at Honshu.
The debate raises other questions: Would Japan have surrendered before the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu?
And could the Americans and British intelligently guess how much fight was left in the Japanese leaders and the Japanese people?
Atomic bomb survivors in Nagasaki say morale was low and the people were ready to end the war.
"How could we fight? We had no weapons," said Nagasaki survivor Tsukasa Uchida. "The American military knew Japan was starving. It knew Japan had lost the war. There was no need for the bombs."
Survivor Akiko Sakita said, "There was no possibility for Japan to win the war ..., and despite what the Japanese military leaders said, there was no possibility to fight on, and surely not with bamboo spears."
Survivors - and historians -also argue the bomb was dropped because the United States wanted to make a show of force to the Soviet Union in the opening round of the Cold War. And they contend the United States did not want to let a $2 billion project go unused.
Even some Manhattan Project scientists had doubts about dropping the bomb on a city. Some signed a petition requesting a demonstration explosion in water or on an island near Japan to impress the Japanese leaders.
Glenn Seaborg, one of plutonium's discoverers, signed that petition. "It just seemed like a good possibility that Japan would have surrendered without the loss of lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
"We may have been wrong. They may not have surrendered," Seaborg said. "It was not a clearcut matter. You could argue the other side."
But Seaborg said he would sign the petition again today.
U.S. leaders feared a demonstration with a still largely experimental bomb could easily fizzle - and not impress anyone.
"They argued that the sooner we used it on Japan, the sooner we would end the war," Seaborg said.
Japan appeared determined to continue the war in the summer of 1945.
Struggles were waged among Japan's top military and civilian leaders on whether to fight or surrender, but the pro-war military factions dominated.
Despite the internal debate, Japan's leaders publicly presented a united front of defiance to the outside world.
Because the Allies had broken Japan's codes, the men responsible for making the decision to drop the bomb had some clues about the split among Japan's leaders. But debate continues today on how much the Allies knew.
On July 26, 1945, Allied leaders issued the Potsdam Declaration, calling for Japan to surrender or face destruction.
Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki described his reaction to the Potsdam Declaration as "to kill it with silence" - the equivalent of saying, "No comment."
But the Japanese military told newspapers July 28 that Suzuki's reaction was to "treat it with silent contempt." And that was the message received by the Allies.
Some Nagasaki survivors like Uchida blame the military for continuing the war until the bombs dropped. He said he felt "rage, anger and fierce fury" at Japanese military leaders "for not surrendering when they knew we had lost the war."
The first atomic bomb fell Aug. 6, 1945, on Hiroshima. Hirohito and the military knew about that city's destruction later that day, but were paralyzed by indecision.
Hirohito did not meet with his supreme war council until about 11 a.m. Aug. 9, within minutes of when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki.
In the first days after the Hiroshima attack, Japan's government tried to keep the awesome destruction a secret from the rest of the nation.
"The Japanese military did not want people to know about the atomic bomb," said Tsuia Etchu, founder of Nagasaki's Atomic Bomb museum. Etchu was an army officer in the city of Fukuoka when the bomb fell.
Vague newspaper accounts were published Aug. 8, describing a new bomb inflicting "considerable" damage on Hiroshima. Nagasaki Prefecture's governor learned about the true extent of Hiroshima's devastation Aug. 8 from an eyewitness.
Uchida criticizes the speed of the second bombing. "Three days was not enough time to make the decision to surrender."
But after Hiroshima, the United States wanted to hit Japan with a second bomb quickly to create the illusion it had many atomic bombs ready, instead of just two.
On the afternoon of Aug. 9, after learning of Nagasaki's destruction, Japan's supreme war council remained split 3-3 on surrendering.
That evening, Hirohito persuaded the die-hards on the council to accept surrender.
"If the bomb was not dropped on Nagasaki, the military would have continued the war," Etchu said. "I think dropping the atomic bomb shortened the war."
Such opinions are split along very human lines.
Japanese survivors who witnessed the horror believe the bomb was unnecessary. U.S. servicemen who faced the bloody consequences of an invasion see the bomb as their salvation.
Fifty years ago in the Tri-Cities, news of the blast brought jubilation.
Larry Forby - a Hanford firefighter in 1945 - remembers riding a Hanford shuttle bus the night the announcement was made.
"Everyone was so happy. ... There was no one who was not touched by the war with either friends or family in the military," he said.
"I don't think there was a single person on the project who was not elated because this would stop the war."
Charles Sweeney - the pilot of the plane that dropped the Nagasaki bomb - expresses no regrets.
"It was certainly evident that they would not have surrendered. I personally think the president would've been derelict in his duty if it hadn't been used. ... The Japanese had the power to stop the war. We didn't have that power. I'm sure we saved a lot of Japanese lives, too."
-
Ridiculous post Miko.
Sure, everyone agreed we had them beat. Well, we had them beat on a lot of island, yet virtually none surrendered. The Japanese fought to the bitter death, and in doing so killed that many more American servicemen.
They did not accept defeat, found shame in surrender and as history clearly shows us, they would rather die than surrender.
Miko, you still love to find fault with the USA and everything we do or have done. Sadly, so many lack the ability to think for themselves ard are easily lead.
I see you are still up to your old tricks, cutting and pasting anything and everything negative you can find to paint our nation in a negative light. Sadly, some of those who populate these boards lack the brains or courage to speak up, to have pride in their country.
"duh, gee, yeah, sounds right miko".
What truely amazes me is so few seem to realize you haven't had an original tought to express on this board yet, you just cut and paste your garbage from others sources.
dago
-
Not surprisingly, Miko cut and pasted the same crap over on AGW. He loves to spread his anti-American rhetoric as far and wide as he can.
Mikos nonsense on AGW (http://agw.warbirdsiii.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&postid=361883#post361883)
Only there, virtually every response was in opposition to Miko, making very good counter-points to his crap.
dago
-
Originally posted by Dago
Not surprisingly, Miko cut and pasted the same crap over on AGW. He loves to spread his anti-American rhetoric as far and wide as he can.
dago
This is what happens when your so full of yourself it comes out your ears.
-
Wish you gents would quit biting the hook that Miko fishes with.
Originally posted by miko2d
This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]
-
I agree Miko that no one can claim they know the truth. That isn't the same as saying there is no truth. Maybe we agree on this point.
However, the Japanese did have airplanes and you can bet they knew their city had been devestated by America within a few hours after it happened. Though I can't cite it, I'd bet there was communications between the two countries shortly after the first bomb as well. They were waiting to see if we'd do more which belies the claim they were ready to surrender. Would they have surrendered without the bomb or an invasion? Perhaps, guess we'll never know.
Originally posted by miko2d
AKIron: No need to get yer panties all in a wad there miko. I'm just stating the obvious. If they were ready to surrender then 3 days was more than long enough to do so after losing a city.
I am not trying to be offensive. Maybe funny beyong my ability but not offensive. I've read an account of japanese actions on acertaining the damage from Hiroshima.
It took them a few days just to realise that the connecttion with the city is not being restored and send someone by car to find out why the hell it takes so long to fix a damn cable, bombing raids or no.
When the low-level functionary came back with the stories by deranged survivors that the city was obliterated by one bomb - which he had trouble believing himelf, a some kind of commission was formed and sent to investigate and after a few days to report to the brass which in turn passed it to the top command and emperor.
By the time Nagasaki happened they just learned what they were dealing with.
As Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss said. "it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning".
BTW, anyone that says there no such thing as "truth" in my book is an "idiot".
The issue is not whether there is truth. The problem is how does one know that he finally knows the truth.
Anyone who says he is sure which piece of knowlege is truth is as much an idiot as a person who denies the existance of truth.
kappa: btw Miko... Have you ever read anything by Gore Vidal?
No. I only started to get seriously interested in social studies three years ago when my first son was conceived. With children, my reading dropped from few hundred pages a day to just few hundred a month.
I have a few feet of books from Aristhotel to Mises and Rothbard on my shalf that I have not read yet. I will probably get to Vidal by the time I retire... :)
Ripsnort; If you had only 2 bullets,...
The point those gentlemen were asserting was that US had Japan utterly defeated and could take time to end the war without much bloodshed.
Even using the "bullet" coudl have been more productive if the japanese were told what to expect or geien more time to acertain the damages. Also, US had about 17 nukes by the end of 1945 from what I've read. Once you get the hang of it, they are not difficult to make when you have billions of dollars and hundreds of thousand people wroking on it.
kappa: Excellent post Miko..
...making me rethink my learned History
That's the attitude! :D
You deserve a bonus. Watch my thread on Galileo.
miko
-
So Miko.... where are all your sources from the Army (not Army Air Force) and Marines (not the Navy) who thought dropping the bomb was a bad idea? Look really hard, you might be able to find a couple. My guess is it is a lot easier for a pilot to say "Damn, that is NO WAY to fight a war" than it would be for someone who is actually on the ground getting shot at (or perhaps getting poked with sticks and stones, depending on how bad off they were militarily). I know in 1945, Japan's navy and air forces were pretty much done for... but all it really takes to kill a man is a big rock or a sharp stick.
As far as why we dropped the bomb, I'm of the camp that thinks we did it to intimidate the Soviets. But I still don't think it was a bad idea.
-
miko..stick to ur tank stories..there much more enjoyable
btw..ur fullof player hatn' sheite
How about the fact that it took japanese several days just to realise what the heck happened after one of their cities suddenly stopped responding to the phone calls in the middle of a disastorous war.
lmfao......a Whole city evaporates......and it takes "several days"...to figure that out?
lmfao...
:rofl
reading an excellent book on Chichi jima..Where our Great George Bush Senior was shot down when bomn radio facilities..
its called
"Flyboys" byJames Bradley
has great insite into the early days of japan,,yes america has done soem very bad things..but Japan surpassed us easily
read it miko....
Love
BiGB
xoxo
-
Err, where the hell are you quoting your sources from Miko?
I say this because I know that many people you quoted had the exact opposite opinion of what you said.
Btw, Japanese culture at the time was still "Fight until death no matter what." Even after dropping the bombs, there were still japanese fighting us.
WW2 Needed to be ended with 2 atomic bombs. Japan was no where even close to surrendering.
-
I agree that there were probably many alternatives to dropping the bomb on populated cities to achieve the ends desired by Truman/Churchill.
But, I would say that while their deaths were terrible, the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have saved all our lives. How many politicians would have been terrified enough of a nuke holocaust to make Mutually Assured Destruction a workable deterrent had they not seen the pictures and movies of the real devastation that a nuclear attack causes? Without that real-life example, I think some politician on one side of the world or the other would assume that a nuke was just another bomb. Without seeing pictures of children disfigured with horrible radiation burns; without hearing the gruesome stories of death from radiation sickness; without seeing pictures of the twisted steel and shadows of vaporized civilians etched into walls...without that, I think the fear would just not been real enough to any of us so as to have saved our skins until the Cold War was won.
-
Thanks for reminding me BGB.
I want to point out that the quotes I used above were taken from James Bradley's "Flyboys". I want to make sure I credit my source.
-
Some Japanese didnt even know they were losing the war until the surrender. The gullible masses would have followed the orders of the fanatic Japanese leaders.
Most of the Japanese would have fought to the death in conventional warfare. Others would have joined the suicide squads. After all, the Barbarious Americans (who ate babies) were invading their homeland!
Even after Nagasaki, the military wanted to overthrow the government and continue the fight.
Heres how I see it:
80% of the reason for dropping the bomb: Ending the War
10%: Scare the Russians off
10%: Testing new technology
-
They dropped the bomb because the deaths of everyone would have neared 1 million people.
While Total War is never a great option, at that time, it was the best one.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
banana: Of course, all of this would be moot had Pearl Harbor never happened.
And that would not have happened if FDR did not sign the Smoot-Hawley tariff act which propmpted world-wide curtailment of trade and left Japan unable to trade for resources it critically needed to survive.
"When goods are not crossing broders, armies do."
miko
Yeah poor Japan....invading countries for years before Pearl Harbor, invading China just to survive. The nerve of the US to stop selling them needed war supplies.
Poor, poor Japan...all they wanted to do was invade countries and not be bothered. After all, they were just trying to survive.
-
[QUOTb]Urchin: So Miko.... where are all your sources from the Army (not Army Air Force) and Marines (not the Navy) who thought dropping the bomb was a bad idea? Look really hard, you might be able to find a couple. My guess is it is a lot easier for a pilot to say...[/b]
None of the people I've cited was a pilot. Each one was a high-level commander or politician who had no prospects of peing pocked with a stick.
In case you are too stupid to understand what they are saying even after reading them, let me rephrease.
None of them said that an invasion was preferable to bombing.
They said that the land invasion was not necessary and neither was the bombing and the blockade would have brought tha same results - or even just accepting Japanese surrender on conditions that US ended up accepting it anyway.
lasersailor184: Btw, Japanese culture at the time was still "Fight until death no matter what." Even after dropping the bombs, there were still japanese fighting us.
WW2 Needed to be ended with 2 atomic bombs.
You make no sense here. FIrst you are saying that they were ready to die "no matter what" and continued after the bombings, then you say the bombs were needed.
Japan was no where even close to surrendering.
Yes. Your word against that of Admiral William D. Leahy, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Admiral William Halsey, Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, former President Herbert Hoover and MacArthur who claimed that Japan was already trying to surrender.
I am not saying you are wrong but you will understand if I do not change my opinion all of a sudden.
BGBMAW: lmfao......a Whole city evaporates......and it takes "several days"...to figure that out?
lmfao...
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?
lasersailor184: I say this because I know that many people you quoted had the exact opposite opinion of what you said.
Well, post their opinon and then we may discuss why they said one thing at one time and a different one at another time. Politicians tend to do that and usually for rational reasons. I believe Eisenhower would have had trouble running for president on a platform of repentance for mass-murder atrocities.
crowMAW: But, I would say that while their deaths were terrible, the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have saved all our lives. How many politicians would have been terrified enough of a nuke holocaust to make Mutually Assured Destruction a workable deterrent...
True. But we have survived so far and the thousands of the nukes are still there and being proliferated while fanatics are looking to obtain one.
It is very possible that without UT trying to "intimidate" russia we would have had much fewer of them - and maybe no Cold War at all.
SunTracker: Some Japanese didnt even know they were losing the war until the surrender.
Good point. That's why an opinon of a US general is more valuable than some lowly japanese pilot.
lasersailor184: They dropped the bomb because the deaths of everyone would have neared 1 million people.
One would think that by now you would be able to tell reality from hypotetical fantasies.
The death of 1 million people was as real as the deaths of 10 million americans from Iraqi WMD. Thatw as an excuse - not necessarily a real reason - as the persons I've quotes seem to believe.
NUKE: Yeah poor Japan...
Japan is not an individual. It is a country with a lot of people, just like US. In some discussions it is valid to refer to a country as a single entity, in others it mkes no sense - like in this one.
When we are talking about social dynamics inside a country that brought certain groups to power because of foreign influence, you cannot consider a country as an undivided whole - by definition.
It makes as much sense to talk of Japan in that context as it makes to talk of US when we are discussing the internal political power struggles.
Osama Bin Laden may have hurt US in general but he surely have benefitted a lot of interest groups here.
Yes, by certain time Japan was agressive and had to be confronted. It became aggressive as a direct result of British tariffs on japanese goods.
Those tariffs were legitimate and british war on Japan was also legitimate but since the goal of the tariffs was to somehow increase weafare of the british people, it does not seem like a rational choice.
Even if tariffs did benefit economy - which they do not, it would seem to me that continuing free trade with Japan since 1930 and not having to fight it would be more profitable than have tariffs and than a war. War cost much more than any revanue a tariff can allegedely bring.
The inavitability of the war with Japan - and Germany - was predicted since 20s and early 30s before either became aggressive by the economists and politicians and the general case of trade restrictions triggering wars ws made in 17th century.
If you pretend that history started in 1941 or that the politicians of 1930s were not supposed to know what trade restrictions would treaten, that just shows your level of education.
miko
-
Nice try miko, but it was YOU who said Pearl Harbor would not have happened if
"And that would not have happened if FDR did not sign the Smoot-Hawley tariff act which propmpted world-wide curtailment of trade and left Japan unable to trade for resources it critically needed to survive.
I mearly pointed out how ignorant semed to be in making a stupid comment like that when we all know Japan had been invading countries for years before that happened. Japan was not denied the means to survive.
So please, Miko, don't go all "windbag" on us trying to divert the argument.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
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
That just doesn't hold water. I'm willing to bet that the top military commanders and the emperor knew they had been hit by an unknown weapon of mass destruction within hours of the event. Lemme see what I can dig up.
-
NUKE: I mearly pointed out how ignorant semed to be in making a stupid comment like that when we all know Japan had been invading countries for years before that happened.
Let's see the dates.
I say Smoot-Hawley Act- The Tariff Act of 1930 preceeds the Japan invasion of Manchuria in 1931 and China in 1937.
Starting with 1918 - when Japan was US ally in WWI, you name any Japanese agression that would be even comparable with US and european invasions and colonial wars of that period.
The trade makes reasons for war disappear - even a country that was aggressive could be made less agressive as a result of a trade.
The major conditions of all peace treaties were trade concessions. Even if Japan was aggressive, signing a free-trade peace treaty before the war would have been infinitely more productive than signing the same treaty after the war.
According to the american political doctrine and commonly accepted political philosophy, foreign conquests by imperial powers do not make regimes stronger but weaker. Most empires that tried to keep together disparate hostile populatioins deteriorated and crumbled on their own accord - Spanish, Roman, Soviet, etc.
Japan trading with China would have grown much stronger than Japan occupying and exploiting China - as we see now.
US had nothing to fear from Japanese aggressions. In fact, if Japan took the european colonies and associated troubles off european hands, europeans would have been better off, japanese colonialism would have crumbled as assuredely as european and american one (Vietnam war, anyone?), the expence would have been Japanese and not american/european and the former colonial people would have hated japanese and not europeans/americans.
If Japan was bad as a country and we cannot consider it at a lower level and deal with it, then how come we did not have to completely eliminate it?
If all that was necessary was just to remove a militaristic power group from influence and give influence to merchant-industrial complex, there were ways to do so without war - like increasing the power and influence of merchants/industrialists by trading with them and letting the military discredit itself in stupoid wastefull colonial adventures.
Some of you guys seem to have trouble keeeping more than one though in your head at the same time. First you say that you believe the oppressive, imperialist and socialist regimes are unstable and bound to fall and then you claim that they would be stable, eternal and outlive american republic unless some superhero like Ronald Reagan or nuclear bomb puts an end to it.
Sure, it makes it easier for you to argue since your agruments can be contradictory all the time but you do not make any sense.
miko
-
As has been mentioned here and I'm sure you know miko. the Japanese were warned many times prior to the bombing of a severe weapon. That they didn't surrender immediately after Hiroshima had nothing to do with their lack of knowledge regarding the devastation of that city but rather as so many have suggested the internal struggle among their leaders.
It's easy to look back and say it wasn't necessary, and no one wants to condone the large scale slaughter of civilians, especially military leaders. Consider this though, Saddam Hussein got off relatively light and surrendered unconditionally. Yet he fought us for 12 years after and eventually rejected every condition he agreed to. If we had gone on in to Baghdad in '91 things likely would have turned out differently. Of course then there would be those saying now that it wasn't then necessary.
Here's an interesting link:
http://history1900s.about.com/library/prm/blbombthatended1.htm
-
AKIron: That just doesn't hold water. I'm willing to bet that the top military commanders and the emperor knew they had been hit by an unknown weapon of mass destruction within hours of the event. Lemme see what I can dig up.
I understand your doubt but I am sure once you find and read the related documents - and get a clearer picture of what japanese conditions were like, it will be much easier for you to imagine.
There was one emperor, one general staff and a huge desperate war going on and a whole bunch of cities of no particular importance being bombed every day. Do you think every morning they all woke up thinking "how is it going in Hiroshima?"
Imagine that something strikes US right now - in peacetime, will all our comms and satellites and measuring equipmant (how many radiation counters did japan have at the time and people who knew what to measure?). How long would it take to determine if that was a some kind of a weapon or an (possibly unusual meteorite) or some kind of other phenomena? It would take at least a few days for a president to come up with a decision to base his policy on. Just hearing all the scientists will take a day or two of meetings.
Something - a some kind of a terrible explosion - happened in Central Siberia in 1908 that leveled thousands of square miles of forest.
I believe people still do not know what the heck happened there - some kind of a comet bouncing off the athmosphere, an anti-matter meteorite. There is a huge devastation but no crater.
There were planty of stories of a secret weapon experiment at the time.
It took 50 years just to come up with some plausible hypothesis.
miko
-
AKIron: As has been mentioned here and I'm sure you know miko. the Japanese were warned many times prior to the bombing of a severe weapon. That they didn't surrender immediately...
I do not argue with that. The point is that the immediate surrender of japanese was not necessary. They could have been blockaded into submission for months or even years.
Once one zeroes in only on the surrender in August, sure, the bombs were the only way for it. But it is not a valid limitation. Overal victory with minimum expence - material, human and political - is.
Consider this though, Saddam Hussein got off relatively light and surrendered unconditionally. Yet he fought us for 12 years after and eventually rejected every condition he agreed to. If we had gone on in to Baghdad in '91 things likely would have turned out differently.
I do not want to derail this discussion even further. There are planty of knowlegeeable americans who believe that he did not fight us for 12 years and that he did not regect conditions and complied with all of them because he wanted nothing better than to be left alone and get back on our good side. He was interested in holding his power, not losing it in a futile struggle with US for no apparent reason. He was a pragmatic secular SOB, not a religious fanatic, whatever he told for internal consumption propaganda.
Same is true about Libya which was offering US all kinds of a deals ever since it lost its Soviet Sponosors.
As Gary Hart, a Senate Democrat from Colorado who won the New Hampshire presidential primary in 1984 wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post in "My Secret Talks With Libya, and Why They Went Nowhere.", e was approached by
Libyans in 1992 when he was a private citizen, they asking him to serve as intermediary with the US State Department to work out a diplomatic resolution to the estrangement.
Hart worked at it for several months, but no matter how open-ended the offers from Tripoli, the State Department was not interested. Hart said that he has always assumed the administration preferred to have Libya remain "a villain."
Of course now the whole story is presented as the result of last year's Bush policy, not 12-year libyan efforts.
Governments need villains and excuses and politicians love to play soldiers and make history.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I do not want to derail this discussion even further. There are planty of knowlegeeable americans who believe that he did not fight us for 12 years and that he did not regect conditions and complied with all of them because he wanted nothing better than to be left alone and get back on our good side. miko
Back on our good side? Is that why he took frequent pot shots at our planes? The US has military planes flying over many countries and very few of them shoot at us. The ones that do aren't trying to befriend us. Tell me you don't really believe that.
Saddam had a lot of ambition and likely had plans to conquer all of the middle east. Of course I'm only speculating on that last part but Iraq reminds me a lot of pre WWII Japan.
-
AKIron: Back on our good side? Is that why he took frequent pot shots at our planes?
Some of the "pot-shots" were just a radar pings. If there were any actual launches, no single plane was shot, so it is much more likely that the shots were undertaken purely for the internal propaganda consumption, not to cause us any harm.
If you are a dictator barely holding to power against plotters and population after a disasterous war, a bunch of foreign planes flying around without permision or UN sanction and bombing at will are not good for popularity - amond the people or military which was his support.
I wonder how long a US presudent would have stayed in power if foreign warplanes were illegally overflying New York and Los Angeles and he did not at least make a show of resistance.
The US has military planes flying over many countries and very few of them shoot at us. The ones that do aren't trying to befriend us. Tell me you don't really believe that.
In any othe country our planes ask permission before entering the souvereign space. The US military planes over Iraq were totally illegal, not sanctioned by UN and intended only to interfere into the internal matters of the iraqis - preventing him from using his military aviation against internal insurgents.
Saddam had a lot of ambition and likely had plans to conquer all of the middle east.
You are serious? Have you seen the stats on Iraq? Population, economy, industry? Have you ever heard about the war between Iraq and Iran where Iraq got soundly trashed and would have been overrun if not for US help?
Of course I'm only speculating on that last part but Iraq reminds me a lot of pre WWII Japan.
The only thing that is really common bewteen Iraq and Japan is that by 1990 Iraq was as much exhausted after 8-year Iraq-Iran war as the japan was in 1945. And that was even before US kicked them in 1991.
Even assuming the incredible hypothetical worst, that he did somehow conquered anything, do you think hw qould have easier time to hold together few dozen militaristic hostile factions (including Al-Qaeda) that he did half a dozen Iraqi factions? Sovied Union was bigger and more powerfull and crumbled all by itself.
How long would have Hussein's regime lasted? He could not conquer Kurds in the mountainous areas, would never have secured the borders and imagine the can of whoppass the world muslim community would have unleashed on him if the secular socialist tyrant occupied the holy lands of Saudi Arabia? Even if US and Europe did nothing, it would have been a spectacle to behold.
You guys are strange. Somehow in every word of yours I see conviction that oppresive socialist regimes are viable and will strengthen and grow unless opposed by overwhelming force. That's not what your schools should have taught you.
Nobody defeated British Empire militarily, nobody defeated soviets, Rome was done by the time some internal barbarian factions (Alaric was a roman general) took control, Charlemaignes's empire split few years after his deqath, so did Alexander's, China is turning around by itself, Iran is changing drastically, etc, etc.
Stop being scared of big bad (or rather small) tyrants. Free society is really stronger and faster-developing and inherently viable while tyranies are boud to fall.
It is our own governments that use imaginary foreign threats to grab more power that we should be worried about.
miko
-
I guess you're just gonna believe what you want miko. I find your view very ostrichesque. Here's a link to at least one incident of Iraq "firing" more than their tracking radar, there were many more. How you can deny this is beyond me. http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/16/Worldandnation/Iraq_fires_on_allied_.shtml
-
AKIron: I guess you're just gonna believe what you want miko.
Here's a link to at least one incident of Iraq "firing" more than their tracking radar, there were many more. How you can deny this is beyond me.
I never denied that Iraq fired a missle - as you can see if you re-read my post. Here is what I said:
If there were any actual launches, no single plane was shot, so it is much more likely that the shots were undertaken purely for the internal propaganda consumption
I am saying that shots were taken for propaganda purposes and did not hit any planes and you claim that I am denying that Iraq shot missles and AA cannon at all. What the hell I was talking about that were taken for propaganda purposes and did not hit american planes? Imaginary missles?
the real issue which is no plane was ever hit by iraqi fire and was most likely never intended to be hit, I do not see what the heck we will achieve by that discussion.
We know that US planes killed a bunch of canadians in afghanistan for "trying to shoot them down". What, do we have to drop everything now and go invade Canada because of a lie concocted by some trigger-happy fame-seeking pilot?
Sure it's much better for a career to report that a shell or a missle was fired at your plane than to admit it was fired nowhere close to being able to hit it. Syrians had no problem making an AA ambush and shooting down US planes and neither did vietnamese or serbians.
Care to remember how many US aricraft were shot down or damaged since US defeated Iraq and Hussein has been out of power?
You really believe that Iraq could not have ambushed at least a single plane flying predicable course with a textbook setup of a few dozen AA missiles and shot it down?
I will even throw you a bone here. Let's say I believe your hare-brained assumption that Hussein did not manage to shoot down a single US plane after realy trying for 12 years.
You tell me, how many iraqi air-defence officers were executed by Hussein for failure to shoot down a US plane on his orders? How many deserted to Kuwait or SA in fear of being executed for that?
Who do you think Saddam Hussein was, a gentle grandfather or a tyrant ready to torture a man and rape his family for any perceived failure?
miko
-
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 :rolleyes:
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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..
-
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
-
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".
-
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.
-
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: lmfao......a Whole city evaporates......and it takes "several days"...to figure that out?
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
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".
miko [/B]
You're missing the point, Miko. All extant & extinct societies are/have been tragically flawed. All societies have committed unspeakable atrocities. The US is certainly no different.
In the US case most of our worst, large scale atrocities were committed when our society was very young. You must remember, in 1800 hundred, most (non native) Americans were emigrants. Thus, our worst atrocities were in fact committed by Europeans.
The number of civilian deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a miniscule fraction of the civilians killed during WW2 by the allies. Look at the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo and other axis cities -- death tolls far in excess of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.
curly
-
Congratulations to those who have decided to rebute Miko with fact and reason. He can't handle that.
Nuke noticed he loves to get verbose in an attempt to confuse and bewilder.
Akcurly understands that Miko just wants to dig up "dirt" on the US, Miko is always trying to paint everything about the USA in a bad light.
lasersailor184 and others are noticing that the "facts" Miko presents are not necessarily true facts.
Slowly the veil lifts, and Miko is more and more being exposed as a not too bright person who constantly attempts to smear everything about the USA. We have a tremendous amount to be proud of, and like any organization/government/person, we are not perfect, we make mistakes, but in the case of the USA, the good exceeds the bad by a huge factor.
Miko, time to buy a new life, your act is past old.
dago
-
I'm still waiting for miko to respond to a little bait....a little tidbit about his "Smoot-Hawley tariff act " statement, in which he stated that it was the cause for Pearl Harbor.
miko, you are too ignorant to even know how I baited you, so I will explain. ( my bait was to get you to refer to the Herbert Hoover act again...incorrectly of course)
The Smoot-Hawley tariff act was signed by Herbert Hoover for one. Another small point: the act was a tarrif act imposing high tarriffs on imorts into the US ONLY and had nothing to do with denying Japan's ability to trade with any country, nor did it deny Japan it's means to survival. It had NOTHING to do with denying Japan anything.
Let's hear some more of your wisdom miko.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I'm still waiting for miko to respond to a little bait....a little tidbit about his "Smoot-Hawley tariff act " statement, in which he stated that it was the cause for Pearl Harbor.
miko, you are too ignorant to even know how I baited you, so I will explain. ( my bait was to get you to refer to the Herbert Hoover again...incorrectly of course)
Let me get this straight, he didn't fall for your "bait" so he's ignorant? :rofl
-
No, he did fall for the bait. He mentioned the tarrif act again to bolster his argument. Problem is, he didnt know what the act was, yet he continued to use it as an argument.
See, I made a point to debate him based on his missinformed argument rather than point out that he was being ignorant. It proved to me that he was indeed ignorant.
-
Miko is more and more being exposed as a not too bright person
====
How can you say such a thing about a man with university education, and russian intellect. God knows these two traits, when combined, are lethal against working class stiffs.
-
Nuke, dont hold your breath for Miko to respond with an intelligent response. It has never happened yet. If he does respond, it will be with a lot of nonsense that will be quite irrelevant to your challenge. Or of course, he might just tell you that you just dont understand the subject. He tries that one when he can't come up with an intelligent reply. But then again, he will probably just ignore your challenge, as this is his most common response to a well thought out counterpoint.
Yeager (S), your grasp of the situation and ability towards subtle humor are admirable.
dago
-
Just wondering if Thrawn is sad, his hero, the famously anti-American Miko is going down in flames. So sad to see your red bubble burst. Who will lead the charge he wonders, who will hold the anti-American banner in this forum, who's voice will Thrawn listen to and say "yeah, what he said!"?
dago
-
The problem with Miko is that he has an agenda. And that colors everything he does and posts. Whether it's regarding the economy, history or muffin recipes. His agenda, to bring a pure capitalistic utopia to the world, skews everything he writes. He is a true believer. And like Timothy McViegh, suicide bombers and most Marine privates, no one can change his mind. If facts are presented that conflict with his view of the world (or how it should be) he keeps changing the game until he gets to win.
And the fact that the rest of us refuse to be prosetylized by him just proves we are ignorant, sheep, or plain traitors to the America created by the Founding Fathers. The fact that we refuse to join him, prostate before the altar of capitalism, cannot be because he is wrong. He, after all, is the victim of an oppresive regime (which gives him insight we'll never have) and much smarter than we are.
Miko, you are obviously a bright guy. And probably right about a few issues. However, your need to constantly denigrate America in an effort to raise up one the might not have ever really existed is boring. And off-putting. The fact is, like many self-preclaimed experts, you're a self-righteous blowhard and a pompus ass.
-
dago, you're acting like a child.
-
Originally posted by Dune
The problem with Miko is that he has an agenda. And that colors everything he does and posts. Whether it's regarding the economy, history or muffin recipes. His agenda, to bring a pure capitalistic utopia to the world, skews everything he writes. He is a true believer. And like Timothy McViegh, suicide bombers and most Marine privates, no one can change his mind. If facts are presented that conflict with his view of the world (or how it should be) he keeps changing the game until he gets to win.
And the fact that the rest of us refuse to be prosetylized by him just proves we are ignorant, sheep, or plain traitors to the America created by the Founding Fathers. The fact that we refuse to join him, prostate before the altar of capitalism, cannot be because he is wrong. He, after all, is the victim of an oppresive regime (which gives him insight we'll never have) and much smarter than we are.
Miko, you are obviously a bright guy. And probably right about a few issues. However, your need to constantly denigrate America in an effort to raise up one the might not have ever really existed is boring. And off-putting. The fact is, like many self-preclaimed experts, you're a self-righteous blowhard and a pompus ass.
No not at all child like, this is well put and very concise, it may have to many multi syllable words for you though.
This about covers most of Miko's stuff as far I can see. He is a smart guy though, thats for sure.
-
I disagree that Miko is a bright guy.
Virtually every thread he started was cut and paste from other sources, much of it from the Libertarians. He is a follower, he has admitted it and all he does is parrot what he hears from others.
If he were bright, he might originate a subject, not regurgitate.
If he were bright, he might actually be able to answer a challenge with a comprehensible response. He doesn't.
If he were bright, he might consider the good and the bad, he might allow balance into his thought process. He doesn't.
Personally, I think he has many of you buffaloed. If I went out and looked for interesting discussions on the internet, pasted into this forum, would you think I am a bright guy?
dago
-
scooter, that avatar is obscene.
Now excuse me while I go to the bathroom and toss a round for old times sake.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Nuke, dont hold your breath for Miko to respond with an intelligent response. It has never happened yet. If he does respond, it will be with a lot of nonsense that will be quite irrelevant to your challenge. Or of course, he might just tell you that you just dont understand the subject. He tries that one when he can't come up with an intelligent reply. But then again, he will probably just ignore your challenge, as this is his most common response to a well thought out counterpoint.
Yeager (S), your grasp of the situation and ability towards subtle humor are admirable.
dago
I actually think Miko is pretty intelligent, or at least he seems to be. Hell, he almost makes me believe that free-market capitalism will eventually "work" (well, not really.... but he comes a helluva lot closer than anyone else I've ever talked with. Including my professors). Some of the other stuff I think he's full of **** on, but he seems like he at least makes an attempt to research his views so he isn't speaking completely out of his bellybutton like a lot of people.
-
You know the Japanese attitude at that time, how fanatic they were, they'd die for the Emperor...
So why did they surrender after the atomic bombings?
Because "he" (the Emperor) told them to. Apparently some weren't content with his decision (that whole bushido thing), and were fanatical enough to plot against his life.
None of the people I've cited was a pilot. Each one was a high-level commander or politician who had no prospects of peing pocked with a stick.
In case you are too stupid to understand what they are saying even after reading them, let me rephrease.
None of them said that an invasion was preferable to bombing.
They said that the land invasion was not necessary and neither was the bombing and the blockade would have brought tha same results - or even just accepting Japanese surrender on conditions that US ended up accepting it anyway.
That's funny. In 1945, it was the impression of the Navy brass that sustaining a blockade (ie, starving the population to death, how humane), would have brought victory. The reason I say that it's funny, is because for many years prior, it was the opinion of the Army Air Force brass that air power alone could win a major war. What anybody should have learned from WW2 is that it took a complete combined arms approach in order to achieve victory. This means that, ultimately, it would take men on foot, armed with rifles. The A-bomb was simply something that no military had factored into doctrine, if only because it was in many respects still inconceivable.
If you take the whole of the second world war into perspective, the quesition of necessity becomes irrelevant. The only practical question was whether or not it would work. It did. But I guess from a humanitarian vantage point, starvation is preferable to incineration, so it was "wrong" (?).