Author Topic: The Atomic bomb...why we used it..  (Read 10109 times)

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #180 on: October 19, 2004, 06:07:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by anonymous
as far as warfare and the military go id say your living in lala land.


I'd say you talk a lot of crap without knowing the background of the person you're talking to.  



Quote
i dont recall the boys *****ing that the cic failed in his oath to protect us.


That's because the "boys" don't cry like you do.  They do their job.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #181 on: October 19, 2004, 06:08:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Squire
All wars end Martlet.

The nation-state that you nuke today would have been be your ally tommorow, thats the lesson of history. You utterly destroy nations you are at war with at your peril. The reasons should be obvious enough.

Wars are fought to decide political and economic issues that were not able to be decided peacefully, they are not intended (at least not on the modern world) to completely destroy your enemy, their land, and all their people. If that was the case, the USN would have fired enough Tridents to make Iraq a flat, glass plateau, but they didn't do that. Ask why. There is a reason that despite the proliferation of nuclear weapons since 1945 nobody has used them, because in the end, they go against the long term aims of the user.


The end result doesn't have to be complete destruction.  That's up to them.  Unconditional surrender is acceptable.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #182 on: October 19, 2004, 06:09:52 PM »
"I'd say you talk a lot of crap without knowing the background of the person you're talking to."


Martlet, have you ever been in the military and/or combat?

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #183 on: October 19, 2004, 06:10:36 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Thrawn
"I'd say you talk a lot of crap without knowing the background of the person you're talking to."


Martlet, have you ever been in the military and/or combat?


Yes, on both counts.  I just don't think you need to crow about it every chance you get.  I have doubts about those who do.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #184 on: October 19, 2004, 06:12:23 PM »
Thank you for your prompt response.

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #185 on: October 19, 2004, 06:13:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
That's because the "boys" don't cry like you do. They do their job.


how is pointing out that youre morally deficient crying? "they do their job"? id say you dont have any idea what it means to be a warrior. "id nuke every city before i lost one soldier!" yeah those sure are the words of a cool, level headed professional. you mentioned crying id say the overly emotional one is you. enlighten me with regards to your "life" tough guy. explain what possible background could make nuking civvies the first option a defensible policy.

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #186 on: October 19, 2004, 06:16:07 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
Yes, on both counts.  I just don't think you need to crow about it every chance you get.  I have doubts about those who do.


well if you want to nuke every city in germany before the first shot on the ground is fired it sounds like you were awfully skeered by your experiences. i guess we differ if i were told "the ops a no go were going to nuke the city instead to make sure we get them all" id be a little uncomfortable regarding the sanity of the guys making the call.

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #187 on: October 19, 2004, 06:18:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by anonymous
how is pointing out that youre morally deficient crying? "they do their job"? id say you dont have any idea what it means to be a warrior. "id nuke every city before i lost one soldier!" yeah those sure are the words of a cool, level headed professional. you mentioned crying id say the overly emotional one is you. enlighten me with regards to your "life" tough guy. explain what possible background could make nuking civvies the first option a defensible policy.


This is like talking to my niece.

"tough guy"  heheh  :aok :aok :aok

Those are the words of a person who values the lives of his men and doesn't toss them into the meat grinder when there are other options.   I never said nuking cities would be the first one, either.   Obviously reading isn't your strong suit.

My responsibility, first and foremost, is to the US of A.  Period.  Not Iraq.  Not Germany.   USA.   If the USA is threatened, I'd take steps to remove that threat with absolute minimal loss of American life.  If that required using nukes, I'd use them.   Today, you don't have to use nukes.  We have plenty of weapons at our disposal.

Losing troops in Fallujah?  Not on my watch.   MOAB.

Offline anonymous

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 984
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #188 on: October 19, 2004, 06:29:46 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
This is like talking to my niece.

"tough guy"  heheh  :aok :aok :aok

Those are the words of a person who values the lives of his men and doesn't toss them into the meat grinder when there are other options.   I never said nuking cities would be the first one, either.   Obviously reading isn't your strong suit.

My responsibility, first and foremost, is to the US of A.  Period.  Not Iraq.  Not Germany.   USA.   If the USA is threatened, I'd take steps to remove that threat with absolute minimal loss of American life.  If that required using nukes, I'd use them.   Today, you don't have to use nukes.  We have plenty of weapons at our disposal.

Losing troops in Fallujah?  Not on my watch.   MOAB.


i guess theres no seeing eye to eye on this one with you. if someone told me that instead of hunting insurgents in a city we were going to pop the moab id say "what?" and i dont think id be the only one. you say reading isny my strong suit i think youre spinning things to hide your sociopathy. "1 American life is worth more to me than 100,000 German lives" is pretty hard to misinterpret. swap the nationalities around a little and youll find you share views with a group that world considers to be evil.

having said all that, the skeered comment was out of line. i apologize. i think youre at least a little crazy but anger could have caused it as easily as fear.

Offline Bingo

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Takes Two
« Reply #189 on: October 20, 2004, 05:49:43 AM »
Both the US and Japanese committed terrible acts,,,,,,,read the book "FLYBOYS"

Bingo

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #190 on: October 20, 2004, 06:14:26 AM »
Discussing the issue of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not unlike the issue of history books prepared for consumption by the youth of a nation - there is always a great divide between truth and myth. All nations and governments twist the truth intentionally and unintentionally.

This will be a long winded but informative historical reality check. It is worth a few minutes reading time. My intent is not to be provocative, but rather to provoke thought.
--------

Contrary to opinion today, many military leaders of the time -- including six out of seven five-star officers -- criticized the use of the atomic bomb.

Take, for example, Admiral William Leahy, White House chief of staff and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war. Leahy wrote in his 1950 memoirs 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." Moreover, Leahy continued, "in being the first to use it, we had adopted an 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."

President Dwight Eisenhower, the Allied commander in Europe during World War II, recalled in 1963, as he did on several other occasions, that he had opposed using the atomic bomb on Japan during a July 1945 meeting with Secretary of War Henry Stimson: "I told him I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used.

General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."

General Curtis LeMay, who had pioneered precision bombing of Germany and Japan (and who later headed the Strategic Air Command and served as Air Force chief of staff), put it most succinctly: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."

Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s."

Admiral Ernest King, US Chief of Naval Operations, said that "the effective naval blockade would, in the course of time, have starved the Japanese into submission through lack of oil, rice, medicines, and other essential materials."

Lacking the knowledge of these and other leaders, the simplistic and less-knowledgeable tend to support the bomb's use with phrases such as this:

"The United States decision to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved over one million American lives which would have been sacrificed by an invasion of Japan."

Which remains to this day a total fiction.

Not only the figure of "one million", which was gratuituously added in the cover story published later to enhance the much lower figures actually predicted by the War Department had the United States been forced to invade Japan, but even the lower, more accurate estimates, represented a complete fallacy.

"There would have been no casualties in a land invasion of Japan because there would not have been any land invasion of Japan. By mid-May 1945 it was clear to all who wished to see: Japan was on the brink of surrendering."
[The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, by Gar Alperovitz. New York: Alfred Knopf Books, 1995]

"There's no excuse for Pearl Harbor, but it is among the least of the brutalities the Japanese committed. There is the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Shanghai, the brutality against prisoners, the Korean "comfort women," the notorious Unit-731 that did vivisection on prisoners to teach medical students-outrageous things the Japanese have to come to terms with. They have a long way to go. They have come close to expressing sorrow, but not regret.

Pearl Harbor was an unjustified surprise attack, but it was a military target. I think the latest figure is 2,500 people killed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both civilian targets predominantly-that's why they were targeted. Hiroshima was selected because it was a significant, unblemished, mainly civilian target, available for the psychological effect of terror bombing. That's very explicit in the documents; it's not controversial. That's what they were doing. And ultimately some 300,000 civilians were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both Pearl Harbor and the atomic bombings were wrong. They are, however, very different questions. The most important thing about Hiroshima was that it was unnecessary, it was at a time when the Japanese were trying to find a way out of the war, and we knew that."
- Noted historian Gar Alperovitz

Japan was a beaten nation by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.

What was left of Japan's factories and workshops struggled fitfully to turn out weapons and other goods from inadequate raw materials. (Oil supplies had not been available since April.) By July about a quarter of all the houses in Japan had been destroyed, and her transportation system was near collapse. Food had become so scarce that most Japanese were subsisting on a sub-starvation diet.

On the night of March 9, 1945, 300 American bombers struck Tokyo, killing 100,000 people. A million residents were left homeless.

On May 23, eleven weeks later, came the greatest air raid of the Pacific War, when 520 B-29 bombers unleashed 4,500 tons of incendiary bombs on the heart of the already battered Japanese capital. Generating gale-force winds, the exploding incendiaries obliterated Tokyo's commercial center and railway yards, and consumed the Ginza entertainment district. Two days later, on May 25, a second strike of 502 "Superfortress" planes roared low over Tokyo, raining down some 4,000 tons of explosives. Together these two B-29 raids destroyed 56 square miles of the Japanese capital.

The two atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were icing on the cake, and did not do as much damage as the firebombings of Japanese cities. The B-29 firebombing campaign had brought the destruction of over 3 million homes, leaving 15 million people homeless, and killing about a million people. Read that part again... over a million civilians were killed. It was ruthless targeting of civilians.

Hirohito realized that the Allies would completely destroy Japan and kill every Japanese to achieve "unconditional surrender" and that persuaded him to the decision to end the war. The atomic bomb is indeed a fearsome weapon, but it was not the cause of Japan's surrender, even though the myth persists even to this day.

In mid-April, 1945 the US Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter." Similar Japanese peace signals through Portugal, on May 7, and again through Sweden, on the 10th, proved similarly fruitless.

to be continued...

Offline Rolex

  • AH Training Corps
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #191 on: October 20, 2004, 06:15:24 AM »
A Secret Memorandum
It was only after the war that the American public learned about Japan's efforts to bring the conflict to an end. Chicago Tribune reporter Walter Trohan, for example, was obliged by wartime censorship to withhold for seven months one of the most important stories of the war.

In an article that finally appeared August 19, 1945, on the front pages of the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald, Trohan revealed that on January 20, 1945, two days prior to his departure for the Yalta meeting with Stalin and Churchill, President Roosevelt received a 40-page memorandum from General Douglas MacArthur outlining five separate surrender overtures from high-level Japanese officials.

This memo showed that the Japanese were offering surrender terms virtually identical to the ones ultimately accepted by the Americans at the formal surrender ceremony on September 2 -- that is, complete surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. Specifically, the terms of these peace overtures included:

-Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
-Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
-Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
-Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
-Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
-Surrender of designated war criminals.

On June 22, 1945 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

On July 17, another intercepted Japanese message revealed that although Japan's leaders felt that the unconditional surrender formula involved an unacceptable dishonor, they were convinced that "the demands of the times" made Soviet mediation to terminate the war absolutely essential. Further diplomatic messages indicated that the only condition asked by the Japanese was preservation of "our form of government." The only "difficult point," a July 25 message disclosed, "is the ... formality of unconditional surrender."

Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato (Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union), US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."

Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."

In spite of this, on July 26 the leaders of the United States and Britain issued the Potsdam declaration, which included this grim ultimatum: "We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Commenting on this draconian either-or proclamation, British historian J.F.C. Fuller wrote: "Not a word was said about the Emperor, because it would be unacceptable to the propaganda-fed American masses." (A Military History of the Western World [1987], p. 675.)

America's leaders understood Japan's desperate position: the Japanese were willing to end the war on any terms, as long as the Emperor was not molested. If the US leadership had not insisted on unconditional surrender -- that is, if they had made clear a willingness to permit the Emperor to remain in place -- the Japanese very likely would have surrendered immediately, thus saving many thousands of lives.

The sad irony is that, as it actually turned out, the American leaders decided anyway to retain the Emperor as a symbol of authority and continuity. They realized, correctly, that Hirohito was useful as a figurehead prop for their own occupation authority in postwar Japan.

Some additional statements on the atomic bombings:

JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)
"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision."

JOHN McCLOY
(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

RALPH BARD
(Under Sec. of the Navy)
"In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb."

LEWIS STRAUSS
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)
"It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

PAUL NITZE
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)
In 1950 Paul Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

ELLIS ZACHARIAS
(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)
"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb. I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."

GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ
(In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)
General Spaatz was the person who received the order for the Air Force to "deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945.

"The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders. We're supposed to carry out orders and not question them."

"On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that [conventional] bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time."

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE
(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)
"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
Re: Takes Two
« Reply #192 on: October 20, 2004, 07:34:49 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Bingo
Both the US and Japanese committed terrible acts,,,,,,,read the book "FLYBOYS"

Bingo


So the question remains, who started it?  The Japanese were in Manchuria as early as 1931...this eventually lead to an oil embargo on Japan.

Peace ensued through superior firepower, which always seems to be the case in war.

Offline Naso

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1535
      • http://www.4stormo.it
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #193 on: October 20, 2004, 08:25:05 AM »
Rip, please, dont start the cut & paste again!!

Mercy!

;)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
The Atomic bomb...why we used it..
« Reply #194 on: October 20, 2004, 08:28:26 AM »
and rolex... where do we find this one and only true account of what REALLY happened?  

lazs