PROUD of mass murder of innocent men, women and children?
Is it racism that makes it impossible for you to separate "just folks" from imperialists?
Are they all simply "gooks" to you, Bill?
Or are you driven by a twisted outlook essentially identical to that of Osama and his bloody operatives?
Were all those prominent individuals in high authority, and in a position to really know, WRONG in voicing their informed belief that the bombings were unnecessary to bring about Japan's imminent defeat?
And that NO huge, costly invasion would have been required to achieve that result.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki constitute THE GREATEST WAR CRIME in human history.
What we did to those two cities' noncombatant populations -- to flex our muscles to the Soviets -- should haunt every one of us each day of our lives.
Shame on America for being the worst mass killer ever!
If our intentions had been as Truman and his apologists stated, then why didn't we stage a demonstration detonation to show the Japanese government what an awful weapon we had?
And why did we HAVE to drop a SECOND bomb?
Bill, you're a constant, pushover patsy and a pawn for the official line.
Learn the great lessons of history, man, so they can't be used against you.
And used to the terrible detriment of our citizenry, as Bush is about to do with his attack-Iraq madness.
Recognize how closely your outlook meshes with what's being described here?
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Don't defend your nation's lies and crimes just because you were born here.
How does being an acquiescing accomplice in America's sins serve our country's interest?
Or any conception of common, consistent decency?
Get your head on straight, soldier.
And keep your eyes peeled for the Gulf of Tonkin incident, deja vu.
Corporate America has done a wonderful job of brainwashing the majority of Americans. It has been subtle, yet very effective.
The vast majority of Americans are working their lives away to earn money to acquire material junk that they never previously needed but now believe they cannot live without. While you bust your backs turning the cog wheel, the good ol' boys on top are scheming how to get richer quicker. Not only do they want to get richer quicker, but they want to become big enough to influence the government.
It is the corporations who run this world, not the people. It is infinite greed pushing into war. Look around people. We Americans are the most aggressive nation in the world. It is America who has the biggest , most powerful war weapons and the most guns. We have already or are about to take steps toward starting World War III.
As soon as President Bush and his boys in the military throw a nuclear bomb, we will get one back in our face. Then they will be flying back and forth and we will slowly be desensitized and accept it. This country has wreaked more violence on others than all the other nations combined. The next time you wave your war banner (flag), think about what you are really asking for. War is not going to make you safer, richer, or more patriotic. You have been duped.
Killing of innocent people can not be justified by any reason whether its to STOP the war in favour of you.
if japanease emperor were doing human right violation with american POW or they were not ready to stop the war in favour of US, its does not mean US had the right to kill 500,000 innocent japaneas civilian.!
if US Gov. and policy makers support Israeli brutality its does not mean anyone got the licence to kill innocent american civilian as osama did at NY and pantagon!
if Saddam is not abandoning his powere it does not mean US got the licence to kill innocent Iraqi people!
terrorism whether its from state or a group its condemnable, no reason can justify terrify the innocent unarmed people.
You remember what I said earlier? That maybe the only positive result of these people's deaths is that at least the world had learned from this mistake? I take my words back. The death of these people, horrifying as it is, was also completely, totally in vain.
How many times have nuclear weapons been used in war since August 1945?
the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED,
Well Denny, here's a news flash for you, they didn't have to be told we were attacked on 9-11. It was obvious to most folks that we were attacked all they had to do was look out the window. And that others are trying to do so again. I say that it's obvious to MOST folks because their are some including you who still don't get it and probalby never will until it's your town that's hit.
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
You and your ilk are exposing the country to danger. And with patriots like you, who needs enemies ? A patriot can and should question things, you however want this country to be nothing like it was intended to be, and that is free. In your sad little world it wouldn't even resemble America. And spare me the social justice equality anti capitalism rant we've heard it before and yea we get it, we're evil.
As soon as President Bush and his boys in the military throw a nuclear bomb, we will get one back in our face. Then they will be flying back and forth and we will slowly be desensitized and accept it. Â Â
Um Earth to Cathy, nobodys "throwing" nukes out. A little tip for you, we haven't used one since 45.
This country has wreaked more violence on others than all the other nations combined. The next time you wave your war banner (flag), think about what you are really asking for. War is not going to make you safer, richer, or more patriotic. You have been duped.
--CATHY MILLER, Brule, Duluth News Tribune letter
No Cathy, you're the dupe, you see Cathy, we were attacked, and they'd like to do so again, they're trying really hard, it's in all the papers. Try reading one. That's o.k you moron, we'll take care of protecting the nation.
Too bad we can't put all the people like Cathy and Co. on an island or perhaps in a town in Baghdad, Syria etc. with no protection whatsoever and a big sign saying unprotected Americans living here. i wonder how brave they'd be then. i wonder how fast they would beg for protection. Yes it's easy when you live in that ever so popular terrorist target like Brule. Then again it's always easy for those who don't have to do and let others do for them.
People, you really shaked my beliefs what the world looks like. Before the question of the Hiroshima bombing was brought up, I thought that, after the first wave of euforia after the bombing, the whole world, INCLUDING AMERICANS had understood what an enormous threat nuclear weapons represent what a great crime using them represents.
Hey Peter, we do understand that and we haven't used one since. And it has in fact avoided wars. Unless their was one last week that missed the news, you're losing it.
if japanease emperor were doing human right violation with american POW or they were not ready to stop the war in favour of US, its does not mean US had the right to kill 500,000 innocent japaneas civilian.!
It wasn't 500,000, Know your history before you post it. How many civilians from other nations did the Japanese kill ? So you're right, we should have let them off the hook without an unconditional surrender. Easy for you to say if you didn't live in Nanking.
if US Gov. and policy makers support Israeli brutality its does not mean anyone got the licence to kill innocent american civilian as osama did at NY and pantagon!
We support Palestine too, we send them money and are trying to get the Isralies to establish a state, we have held them back on numerous occasions from simply rolling over the Palestinian people. And a more important question to you is who supports Palestinain brutality ? You forgot to mention that i see.
if Saddam is not abandoning his powere it does not mean US got the licence to kill innocent Iraqi people!
Easy for you to say. Then again we aren't the ones releasing Alquieda prisoners and threatining nuclear war with India.
PROUD of mass murder of innocent men, women and children?
You are, you say it everyday by apologizing for suicide bobmbings and terrorism. Sleeping o.k ?
Is it racism that makes it impossible for you to separate "just folks" from imperialists?
Are they all simply "gooks" to you, Bill?
Ahh that's it Denny, play the race card, you forgot to call him a Nazi.
Or are you driven by a twisted outlook essentially identical to that of Osama and his bloody operatives?
No that would be your modeous operendi afterall you apologize for murder and terrorism daily.
Were all those prominent individuals in high authority, and in a position to really know, WRONG in voicing their informed belief that the bombings were unnecessary to bring about Japan's imminent defeat?
All those "prominent" voices you herald didn't have to try to take a bloody piece of coral and sand. Much like you today.
And that NO huge, costly invasion would have been required to achieve that result.
Yes I'm sure they would have let us have a picnic in downtown Tokyo.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki constitute THE GREATEST WAR CRIME in human history.
Really Denny ? You must have forgotten about Nanking, the Battan death march, The prison camps, the Manilla massacre etc. Oh and then their was those little Holocaust epsiodes and Stalin's death camps but hey, who's counting right.
What we did to those two cities' noncombatant populations -- to flex our muscles to the Soviets -- should haunt every one of us each day of our lives.
Nope it should haunt the Japanese who decided to attack us and remember what they did to people.
Shame on America for being the worst mass killer ever!
Man you're laying it on thick now, you're now resorting to being a liar too, oh well, you have in the past so why stop the lying now.
Bill, you're a constant, pushover patsy and a pawn for the official line.
Bill is a patriot, something you'd know ZIP about and as for the official line, yours is simply from the socialist party losers.
Learn the great lessons of history, man, so they can't be used against you.
Dennis, you need to look at history and separate it from your socialist website lies and propoganda. Then again if we could go back in history and put you in charge we'd all be speaking Japanese right now and waiting in line for our government bread.
"The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings constitute THE GREATEST WAR CRIME in history."
Nobody can rationally deny the veracity of that statement.
Trying to do so merely shows how some people will let their land of birth and a false "patriotism" associated with it...strip them of intellectual honesty and moral credibility.
"We" had to do it so "we" could win (even if the bombings weren't objectively required to achieve Japan's defeat).
I imagine the 9/11 murderers took a similar view, justifying their crime from the standpoint of their national/religious/ideological perspective, and couching it all in an aura of "necessity".
Bill tries to defend a monumental travesty by arguing that Japan attacked us first.
Well, the Third World can certainly point to prior U.S. assaults on their sovereign territories and upon their hallowed cultures, in a thousand and one inperialist instances, adding up to a keenly felt "need" to put an end to such aggressive, exploitative interference.
Via terrorism.
But terrorism that, simply because they're so relatively small and powerless, will invariably be on a vastly lesser scale than what we dropped on the playing children of Hiroshima and the washerwomen of Nagasaki.
Or what we did in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam era, with naplam, white phosphorus, B-52 saturation attacks, Agent Orange, and with anti-personnel bomblets spewing nylon shrapnel that couldn't be readily detected by x-rays, to the extent the Vietnamese had such equipment in their few real hospitals -- such as Bach Mai, which we bombed, more than once.
Or in so many places at different junctures along such a long time path that it strangles the soul, or should, just to think about.
Our historical brutality -- employed not out of any actual, imperative desperation such as Palestinians have been forced to resort to against Israel's titanic, uncompromising occupation -- has all too often been utilized for crassly opportunistic, self-serving purposes.
To make the world's human and natural resources freely and cheaply available for Western (mainly American) special interests.
For predacious corporations and greedy banks.
Occasionally, someone from the inside comes clean about what really motivates us.
Such as Smedley Butler, the former Marine Corps Commandant, who admitted to being "a racketeer for Wall Street". Or Dwight Eisenhower, who acknowledged that our actual purpose for being in Indochina was its "tin, tungsten and rubber" -- and that the Communist Ho Chi Minh would have won "80%" of a free Vietnamese vote, had we allowed it.
58,000 names on the wall.
For abject profit lust.
There isn't anyone or anything the American military/industrial complex won't kill for a fast, easy buck and decisive control over somebody else's country.
Bring on the sacrificial babies, schoolgirls, and doddering old men of Iraq.
Oil is more valuable, right?
---
Thousands of Americans died in Vietnam because a handful of Washington bureaucrats were too drunk with their own machismo to chart a different course.
The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. (Zinn points out in the book that "nighttime bombing" was by its very nature indiscriminate, not aimed primarily at military targets.)
And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning.
Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin ("A World Destroyed").
Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.
The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said — a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project — the project to build the atom bomb — were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.)
These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people.
Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. A New York Times military analyst wrote, shortly after the war:
"The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26."
Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
But could American leaders have known this in August 1945?
The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted.
It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered.
On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to — and did — relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to conclusion."
If only Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place — the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it.
Or was it, as British scientist P.M.S. Blackett suggested ("Fear, War, and the Bomb"), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan?
The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan.
But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan.
In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."
Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz ("Atomic Diplomacy"), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as
"most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."
Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar was possible, the killing of civilians."
It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report:
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment?
Martin Sherwin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:
"Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, given location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply."
The reply: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged."
--From Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and The Political Literacy Course of the Common Courage Press
Luv, You still do not realize the saddest part, do you? Â Â Tha bombing has taken place 57 years ago. Other people, other governors. No one would accuse use because of the bombing itself. And I agree the US has not used nukes ever since. But that is not the important thing. You are saying that the bombing was justified. So you are saying that there are circumstances, under which the use of nuclear weapons on civilian population is justified.(correct me if I'm wrong) And if there such circumstances exist, then they are possible, or even very likely, to be met in the future again. And that is an extremely dangerous way of seeing things. Â Â
Yes you did take it the wrong way. Today we also have the vision of highinsight. It's a grand gift that we have. We didn't have the luxury of knowing back then what we do now. Was it justified then ? I'm sure you'll say no. Then again you weren't one of the people who would have had to very possibly die to find out. You weren't the one who was attacked. It's easy to say from the comfort of a computer and with the distance of time. It's a horrible weapon. One that people probably couldn't fathom without seeing what it could actually do. I can say with realative confidence that that horrid weapon has averted some wars and has probably saved lives. Would we ever use them again. Doubtful, unless we were provoked in a way that left us no other options ie: we were attacked with nukes. Other than another nation sending nukes our way I doubt you'd ever see it happen. We didn't use them after 9-11 so if we didn't then I doubt we ever would unless we were attacked first. We are also trying to work on a missle defense program so that it wouldn't be our only option and the same people who bitch about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the same ones who bitch about trying an alternative.
Country Military Civilian Total  Soviet Union* 8,668,000 16,900,000 25,568,000  China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000  Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000  Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000  Japan 1,506,000 300,000 1,806,000  Yugoslavia 300,000 1,400,000 1,700,000  Rumania* 520,000 465,000 985,000  France* 340,000 470,000 810,000  Hungary* 750,000  Austria 380,000 145,000 525,000  Greece* 520,000  Italy 330,000 80,000 410,000  Czechoslovakia 400,000  Great Britain 326,000 62,000 388,000  USA 295,000 295,000  Holland 14,000 236,000 250,000  Belgium 10,000 75,000 85,000  Finland 79,000 79,000  Canada 42,000 42,000  India 36,000 *** 36,000  Australia 29,000 29,000  Spain** 12,000 10,000 22,000  Bulgaria 19,000 2,000 21,000  New Zealand 12,000 12,000  South Africa 9,000 9,000  Norway 5,000 5,000  Denmark 4,000 4,000
Logic shows that, while the use of nuclear weapons may be in the interest of a country in short-term perspective, the mass devastation and major shift of world opinion provide much bigger losses in the long term. For example: Japan was defenceless and completely out of the war when the US bombed it, but still I agree in short terms it did save the US some effort.
You mean lives, not effort it saved, and guess what it saved theirs too in the long run, if you know anything about the Japanese in that period then you would know they were no where near surrender. If you can't see that or admit it then you are being dishonest to yourself. And guess what Peter and Dennis. WE OFFERED A SURRENDER PRIOR TO USING THE BOMB AND THEY SAID NO! Of ocurse it's too convienent to remember that little fact.
So Peter and Dennis here's some facts that perhaps you overlooked. It won't matter in your eyes I'm sure but at least your efforts to mislead are exposed. Maybe you don't do it intentionally i don't know but here you are.
The Magic summaries and the Ultra intercepts of German communications) were one of the key reasons that the Allies were able to foil the Axis plans of world domination. Only six Americans were authorized to read these intercepts. Of these six men, only one was elected. That was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he did not see, nor did he read, everything. The other policy-making recipients of Magic were: Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, Secretary of State Cordell Hull, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox, the chief of naval operations (the last being Adm. E.J. King) and Gen. George Marshall, the Army chief of staff. The most important of these decision makers was Gen. Marshall.
...
Marshall also knew prior to the February 1945 Yalta Conference that Russia would break its nonaggression pact with Japan and attack Manchuria about 90 days after the surrender of Germany (V-E Day). The Magic Summaries documented the shift of Soviet troops by rail from Europe to the Far East for this purpose. Because of a major intelligence failure, Marshall also believed that the Japanese had maintained their troop strength In Manchuria and were capable to resisting a Soviet Attack. But Tokyo had secretly brought back many of its troops from Manchuria to defend the home islands of Japan from an American invasion, leaving Manchuria and Korea easy prey for the Russians.
Marshall also knew from the Magic decrypts that the Japanese home islands were to be defended from invasion and occupation by 2.3 million troops, another four million Army and Navy employees and a newly created armed militia numbering 25 million. These defenders were sworn to fight to the death, which so many Japanese troops had done in battles throughout the Pacific.
To effectively invade and occupy Japan, American strategists foresaw two invasions, scheduled for November 1945 and March 1946. The first invasion, on the island of Kyushu. would employ some 770,000 American troops. The follow-up invasion on the plains of Tokyo, leading to the forced occupation of Japan, called for two million American troops.
***This ones for you gentleman.
This brings us to the heart of the Enola Gay argument made by revisionist historians who claim
(1) that President Truman either invented after the fact high invasion casualty estimates to provide moral and political justification for the use of atomic weapons; or (2) that Truman was never told about potentially high invasion casualties; or (3) that archival documentation for pre-invasion casualty estimates does not exist; or (4) that the pre-invasion estimates were minuscule. But according to documents I have uncovered, a conference to discuss pre-invasion casualties was held at the White House on June 18, 1945, between President Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. From the Pacific, Gen. Douglas MacArthur submitted rather optimistic casualty estimates. This caused Adm. William D. Leahy, Truman's military advisor, to take charge of the session. Based on the experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, Leahy predicted that in an invasion of Japan, 30% to 35% of U.S. soldiers would be killed or wounded during the first 30 days. Truman obviously understood what Leahy said. The president remarked that the invasion would create another Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other. The Joint Chiefs of Staff agreed. Â Â
Suddenly, and only after being advised about the buildup of Japanese forces and fortifications by Magic intelligence, MacArthur medical staff revised its pre-invasion needs for hospital beds upwards by 300%. MacArthur's chief surgeon, Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties.
Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR . According to the Magic Diplomatic Summaries of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: "Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The Magic Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan's militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans.
Near surrneder Dennis and Peter say ? hmmmm.
On July 4, 1945, the British agree to the use of the atomic bomb against Japan. On July 16, during the Potsdam Conference, the first A-bomb was successfully tested. A way had been found to end the war quickly and decisively. This was the situation on July 26 when the U.S., Britain and China issued the Potsdam Declaration to Japan to surrender unconditionally, "The alternative," said the declaration, "is complete and utter destruction."
On July 25, Japanese Premier Kantaro Suzuki announced to the Japanese press that the Potsdnm declaration was to be Ignored." Meanwhile, the Magic Summaries revealed that Tokyo was demanding that Moscow accept a special envoy from Emperor Hirohito, presumably to cement the deal offering to divide Asia between Japan and Russia while Moscow brokered a Japanese surrender with the U.S. and Britain that would be acceptable to Tokyo.
Gee guys I thought they were going to surrender.
This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan. Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear weapons.
Two bombs were dropped. The Russians invaded Manchuria. On August 10, Emperor Hirohito overruled his militarist advisors and accepted the Potsdam declaration. Japan surrendered.
Propaganda Campaign But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost immediately; the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister, Mamoru Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the Americans as war criminals for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals included keeping Emperor Hirohito from being tried for instigating a war of aggression, and diverting Western attention away from the many Japanese atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937. "Since the Americans have recently been raising an uproar about the question of our mistreatment of prisoners [of war],'' Shigemitsu instructed his diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should make every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our propaganda. That propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the revisionist account of the bombing of Japan. Â Â
Yet the evidence is crystal clear. The use of nuclear weapons to end World War II quickly and decisively averted the death or maiming of hundreds of thousands American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen. It also saved the lives of some 400,000 Allied prisoners of war and civilian detainees in Japanese hands, all of whom were to be executed in the event of an American invasion of Japan. Above all, it saved untold hundreds of thousands more Japanese-perhaps millions-from becoming casualties of pre-invasion bombing and shelling, followed by two invasions and forcible occupation.
The use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has raised the question of whether we were justified, or could we have achieved the same end using conventional weapons. This is my attempt to present statistical justification for unleashing the awesome destructive power of the A-bomb on Japan. August 14, 1945 was a day of celebration and thanksgiving, for it marked the end of the most destructive conflict in human history. It was the day Japan unconditionally surrendered. The instrument that dealt the final blows to theJapanese Empire was the A-bomb. But for some, time had slowly replaced the joy and elation of that victory with a creeping, gnawing feeling of guilt and recrimination.
The theater of war has always been full of human sufferings, but never had its two main characters, death and destruction, been so horribly portrayed as in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though regret fills our hearts that so many had to die to achieve our victory, we cannot let our compassion cloud our judgment of those two nuclear detonations. To be impartial critics, we must base our reviews on each and every act that led to the final curtain. We must examine the chain of events that caused the decision to use such an awesome weapon.
Japan was a nation bound in unity by culture and tradition. Her people obeyed their emperor without question. To them he is not a man....he is god. To die for him was an honor and to shirk death was to suffer humiliation. They believed in the righteousness of their cause and that ultimate victory would be theirs. These beliefs made the Japanese a formidable foe, unafraid to die for the glory of their country and their emperor; it made our campaign for final victory a war of attrition.
FromGuadalcanal to the Marianas, from the Philippines to the Ryukus, suicidal Japanese forces made step-by-step extermination necessary. Japanese survivors were practically non-existent. Civilian casualties were also high and the toll on our troops was staggering. Two of the bloodiest battles were for Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Iwo Jima, an island about five miles long, was invaded by 75,144 American assault troops. Of over 20,000 Japanese troops there, only 212 survived. An actual death count of 13,234 was made and another 8,070 were estimated to be buried or sealed in caves. Our troops suffered 4,590 dead, 15,954 wounded, and 301 missing. The carnage to say the least, was excessive for the size of real estate involved.
Okinawa, an island 60 miles long and varying from 2 - 18 miles wide, with a population of 435,000, was invaded shortly after Iwo Jima. The Japanese military strength was 77,199 and 83 days of fighting left a wake of 110,071 known Japanese dead, 7,400 military prisoners, 12,520 American dead or missing, 36,631 wounded. From the figures cited, it could be concluded that local civilians also suffered a tremendous number of casualties.
After Okinawa, the invasion of Japan would have been the next logical step, had it not been for the A-bomb. Plans were already made for the invasion, but were shelved in favor of a nuclear attack. There are many possible reason, but for the purpose of speculation, let us examine one possibility.
Japan had an estimated population of 82,636,000 and consisted of four main islands. She had an indented coastline, measuring 17,150 miles and heavily defended. Militarily, Japan was a nightmare to invade. Invasion could be done only at a great loss of lives, both American and Japanese. The nature of her coastline could prove devastating to any invasion force. That, plus the pattern set by the Japanese in previous battles, made invasion too costly to undertake. As the lesser of two evils, the decision to use the A-bomb, if Japan refuse to surrender, was made. A warning was given to that effect, but was not heeded.
On August 6, 1945, the first A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a city with a population of 343,969. The resulting casualties were 78,150 dead, 37,425 injured, and 13,983 missing. Nagasaki, with a population of 252,630, was bombed three days later. A commission on the bombing released a report showing 73,884 died as a result of that holocaust.
Without letting the cloud of nuclear fears impair our reasons, let us sort the aforementioned statistics and render our judgment.
I find that the bombings eliminated the necessity of sacrificing more lives and therefore justified.
I'm sure that no matter what is posted you'll see it different.You claim they would have surrendered. That's a fallacy. They were given the chance and DECLINED ! Pick up a book. The only way they would have even remotely considered surrendering was by maintaining their land and Imperical system with the emporer still fanning their nationalistic and zealous murrderous ways. They slaughtered millions of civilians. Would we have let Hitler stay in power ? of course not. They killed and torured millions far more than the A-bobmbs that ended that slaughter and yet we are the ones taken to task ? They were no different than the Germans. We were attacked and brought into a war. We rebuilt thier cities and economy and gave it back. And yet we are the bad guy ? Why no outcry over civilian losses about German citizens ? The Japanese were worse in many ways. Well I'm sure you'd have had no problem leaving old Adolf in charge then too. Of course it's easy if you weren't an 18 year old kid from Kansas who had to be one of millions on both sides to die if the war had prolonged itself. You have that luxury, they didn't. It's easy for you. Way too easy as a matter of fact.
Odd thing though, I spent some time In Japan and never once saw anger or resentment from the people, they felt shame over WW2. Were they happy about it ? i'm sure not it was a sad moment for their nation. And the bobmbings were a horrid reminnder. Funny you would say that the world looked at it and we are still hated for it today. They seem to have been able to put it in the past and move forward as allies. Their opinion matters more to me since it was they who endured it. How sad some who weren't even involved or born use it for political advantage.
As many of you know, having read my several posts about him over time, and of him having been an eyewitness to Hiroshima's devastation, he would have been part of that "huge and costly" invasion that reactionary disinformation continues to preposterously claim would have been "mandatory" to bring about Japan's capitulation.
Having personally seen the destruction that we inflicted on Japan, not just by nuclear means, he categorically rejected that contention as a bald-faced, manipulative lie.
There was nothing left of Japanese civil society, let alone its decimated military.
He SAW the direct opposite of what you foolishly insist was the contrary, based on the miscalculations and/or distortions of some at the time, and the mythical apologia concocted since to shield us from an unspeakably evil truth.
Contrary to the atom bombs ending the war "early", learned souls such as Stewart Udall have posited that waiting around for their development and "opportune" use...actually extended the war artificially, costing many lives.
Eisenhower, Hoover, MacArthur and a host of other prominent figures from the period -- plus America's own Strategic Bombing Survey -- expressed views that Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have to happen.
Moreover, many of these beliefs were stated well before the bombs fell:
April: General Curtis le May (US Air Force) said that the war could be ended by September or October without an invasion.
May 12: William Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Studies, reported to President Truman that Shuichi Kate, Japan's Minister to Switzerland, wished to "help arrange for a cessation of hostilities."
Mid-June: "A surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." Admiral W.D. Leahy, President's Chief of Staff.
The series of surrender-seeking contacts the Japanese had with the Soviets in the months before August are thoroughly documented, and WERE made known to the U.S. via direct communication from Stalin to Roosevelt, among others.
And here's the pivotal point Rob completely overlooks:
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it LATER DID ANYWAY, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
--Norman Cousins, consultant to MacArthur during the occupation
Truman delayed Japan's surrender needlessly by insisting on deposing the Emperor (shades of Bush wishing to get rid of Saddam!), but then agreed to the imperial apparatus being retained, after all.
After the two A-bombs left nothing of countless kids but "shadows" burned onto adjacent concrete.
Admiral William D. Leahy put it perhaps the best:
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that 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."
And former president Herbert Hoover said:
"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
Palestinian suicide bombers, who wouldn't exist if Israel weren't so ruthlessly obstructionist to necessary justice, offend your sensibilities.
But Hiroshima and Nagasaki DON'T?!
By the way, Rob, the civilian casualties that you list from WWII are the consequence of what happens when capitalism degenerates into full-blown, barbaric fascism...a trend you certainly haven't resisted, as it's been manifested in various aspects of the War on Terrorism, particularly the assaults on sacred American liberties.
I see you as someone who wouldn't have said "boo", had you been living in Germany as Hitler was driving it toward abject authoritarianism, and war.
Nationalism and conservatism always produce the same terrible results.
GAZA CITY, Aug 21: Israeli forces blasted their way into a Gaza town on Wednesday, killing a Palestinian civilian and wounding four more in an operation to root out militants, as fresh violence threatened to cripple the latest efforts to restore calm.
Israel tanks and infantry stormed into the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis in the small hours of the day, sending residents of the bullet-scarred refugee camp scattering. The troops ordered the evacuation of two high buildings overlooking the neighbouring Jewish settlement of Gush Katif.
The blast also destroyed 15 small refugee houses in the immediate vicinity and damaged another 22, Palestinian security officials said. One man was crushed to death when the blast and falling debris obliterated his house, Palestinian officials said.-AFP
Can all these brutality bring peace and stability for Israel !?? violence always produce violence
Simply by TRYING to defend the atrocity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you've painted yourself into a moral corner, Rob.
You've made it abundantly clear that you condone the mass murder of innocent men, women and children when you think doing so "gets the job done" for "our" side.
Doubtlessly the same rationale is used by Al Qaida in connection with 9/11.
And Palestinian suicide bombers.
One can't refrain from condemning the worst terrorism of the mighty and hope to retain ethical authority in criticizing the least terrorism -- the flawed freedom fighting -- of the desperate oppressed.
America's chief failure since last September has been its stubborn refusal to address the prior, greater, TRIGGERING sins of itself...to which justifiably angered peoples all across the globe are responding, often with terrible violence.
That inability -- which Osama no doubt took into careful consideration as he masterminded how we would react -- could prove to be our fatal undoing.
By striking back blindly (and with mass, indiscriminate violence of our own that now entails a definite nuclear threat), we will just make more enemies, permanently, until all of humanity stands arrayed against us.
We need to clean up our own horrendous act before hypocritically accusing others.
What is it, if not racism, that allows for the pervasive assumption that it's preferable to sacrifice little Japanese kids at play, their chore-doing mothers, and old men reminiscing about the past...rather than lose predominantly white, American soldiers?
if US can use killing of innocent civilian by nukes to change the policies of another country in favour of its own, why can't terrorist use killing of innocent american civilian by planes to change the policies of US!
Sorry to hear of your fathers passing. My condolences to you and your family in this time of grief. From what you had said he had been ill but it never makes it easier. It's hard to lose the person who helped guide and shape you. Sorry for your loss.
If you still feel up for debate I would take issue with a few things. you stated.....
Simply by TRYING to defend the atrocity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you've painted yourself into a moral corner, Rob. You've made it abundantly clear that you condone the mass murder of innocent men, women and children when you think doing so "gets the job done" for "our" side. Â Â
Doubtlessly the same rationale is used by Al Qaida in connection with 9/11.
I could say the same for you and that your in a corner as well. You decry our use of the bomb 60 years ago and defend or find reason or validity for what the Palestinains do. Both killed civilians so apparently you, support or understand and or condone one and condem the other. You know the line you have said defending the Palestininans many times "By any means nesescary" I guess the majority in Aug 1945 felt it was the only way to prevent MASSIVE casualties. So it was by "any means nessecary" that that they brought about a swift end to the war that also as a side benefit saved probably a million or more Japanese lives as well. So one was meant to end a war and save lives in the long run (which it did) and the other was to simply kill to make a political statement or start a war. So it all comes down to deciding whom was more justified. I think we know whose side you come down on with that issue.
I haven't painted myself into any corner Dennis. The reason you don't see it is that there IS a difference between right and wrong and a difference between war and terrorism there is a difference in motive as well. First of all we were attacked unprovoked and by suprise, (that's twice now). Oh sure they had reasons just as Alquieda claim to have. Neither of which gave them an excuse or could justify their attack. The difference is that one side is right and one is wrong. It's that simple. It's black and white, as hard as it is for you to see your country in a positive light, it's still true.
Having personally seen the destruction that we inflicted on Japan, not just by nuclear means, he categorically rejected that contention as a bald-faced, manipulative lie.
There was nothing left of Japanese civil society, let alone its decimated military. Â Â
He SAW the direct opposite of what you foolishly insist was the contrary, based on the miscalculations and/or distortions of some at the time, and the mythical apologia concocted since to shield us from an unspeakably evil truth.
I'm not sure what branch or where your father served but both my Grandfathers served in WW2 in the Pacific and thier assesment was 180 degrees different than that. They also SAW first hand the extent it's soilders and civilians would go to. to defend ther God and Emporer. Take a look at any battle for stark evidence of that. Look how many surrendered or civilians threw themseleves and their children off cliffs in Okniawa rather than surrender. Their military in numbers was in the MILLIONS and they trained every civilian to fight. And they would have to the last.
By the way, Rob, the civilian casualties that you list from WWII are the consequence of what happens when capitalism degenerates into full-blown, barbaric fascism...a trend you certainly haven't resisted, as it's been manifested in various aspects of the War on Terrorism, particularly the assaults on sacred American liberties. Â Â
Oh yes Dennis another attempt to blame capatalism on all those deaths. Gee Dennis, Did you look at Russia's. They were communist. What a joke, I have heard you say some funny things but that's the funniest. Theres zero connection but nice try, wow you're dishonest.
I see you as someone who wouldn't have said "boo", had you been living in Germany as Hitler was driving it toward abject authoritarianism, and war.
In short, BULLSHIT Dennis. Yes I'm sure seeing as how brave you are with a computer and all the battles you've fought in you'd have stood up to Adolf. You'd have let him walk into downtown Superior. Yes try to tie me in as a Nazi sympathizer get a new tactic, your out of material Dennis, get a new bag. Well at least you didn't call me a racist since you disagreed with me. But go ahead and throw that in too, it just makes your bullshit easier to see through. You'd probably have been the one to try to tell the nations that were attacked how it was all their fault and justified it just as you do terroism. I can hear it now, well France and England even though Adolf is a bad guy you must realize it's the injustices as the result of the tyranical nature of the treaty of Versailles. What a hoot you are Dennis. Time to take yourt meds, o.k.
Nationalism and conservatism always produce the same terrible results.
yes and communism and socialism is doing so well......(snicker)
Revisionist also have attempted to build a case that Japan was "looking for a way to surrender." Factual accounts by the people attempting to negotiate the surrender don't seem to carry much weight with the revisionists, especially when the people involved in negotiations categorically deny the Japanese even hinted at the possibility of surrender until the Nagasaki blast. Within 2 hours of Nagasaki, these same negotiators found themselves extremely busy working out the details of a surrender.
The controversy centers on the rationale used and the timing of the use of the weapons. Pseudo scholars attempt to draw conclusions pointing to this imagined evil. However, the truth is simple. At a time of war, the U.S. President balanced the military, political, and domestic pressures to end the war and chose to use the weapons. As horrendous the effects, all those claiming the evil seem to forget that all war produces similar unpleasant deaths and horrible wounds.
The use of the atomic bombs ended the war with Japan in days, instead of months. Attempting to figure out how many lives were saved or not saved by their use or hysterically pointing at the horrible deaths is dramatic but irrelevant. The bombing of Dresden, an ultimately necessary act of war was far more viscous and horrid. The corpses in V-1 and V-2 attacked London were as brutally frightening as those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Yet the reparations supporters focus on the evil of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, NOT the evils of World War II itself, nor the evils of the Japanese invader. Whenever the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor is mentioned, revisionists completely lose their rationale and claim the U.S. deserved the attack. Not too surprisingly, barely two weeks after the Terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and U.S. Pentagon in September 2001, these same revisionists began to point to U.S.policy in the middle east and try to blame the U.S. saying America deserved to be attacked.
A few more thoughts for our residient revisionists.
No one would argue that atomic or nuclear weapons are horrific. They are a tool of war and war in itself is a horrid, horrid thing. The arguments made by those who wish to revise history or find fault with the decision to do so are blessed with the gift of highinsight and the comfort of knowing that they didn't have to face a fanatical enemy who would fight to the last man woman and child to fight for their god. Surrender was considered it's own death to the Japanese. They were dead to their god and to their families if they did so. And they did and would have fought viciously.
Their fanatacism was similar but even more horrid to the Germans. For theirs was drivne by religion as well as nationalism. Their attrocities are a much longer list than the Nazi's. They killed, tortured, murdred, enslaved and raped a much larger number of people but little attention is paid to that. They, like the Nazi's and the terrorists of today are blinded by a hatred of all who are different, they see and saw themselves as superior. With the exceptions of the Nazi's the other two fight with a religious zeal on top of their hatred.
The revisionists will say they were close to surrender but Dennis and Co. will never or rarely will answer this......... If they were close to surrender then why didn't they ? If their military was so decimated as they claim even though they can't back it up, then why didn't they when they were given the chance BEFORE the bomb was used ? If things were that bad then they should have but they didn't because they had plenty of people. If they were so close to surrender as you claim, why didn't they surrender right after Hiroshima when they were again given that chance and didn't until the second one was used? I guess showing them one in Nevada would have really done it eh? Were the soilders and people going to suddenly change those same fanatical tactics when we invaded their home islands ? They would have fought even more fiercely.
Surrender would have only happened if the Japanese had it on their terms. Which would mean leaving the empire in place and the Emporer in power. That would have kept alive the same problems that started their wars 10 years previously. They murdered MILLIONS MORE people and were worse in many ways than the Germans. The bombings of Dresden killed more but not much is written about that. Why ? because people saw it for what it was, the way to bring the war to an end and an eventual peace. They knew the evil of the Nazi's and knew they had to be stopped. SO revisionists, should we have negotiated a surrender with Hitler and the Nazi's ? That's the difference, they surrendered because they saw the outcome. Japan wouldn't and didn't. But I'm curious to know from the revisionists since they know better. Should we have negotiated a peace with Hitler ?
Let's say that we had foregone using the bomb and invaded the island as some say we should have done. O.K now there's probably 1/2 to 1 million more U.S casualties and 3 million or more Japanese casualties. O.K and the civilian casualties would have been even greater. In the preemptive bombing etc. O.K great so we didn't use the bomb, now we feel better and can claim the moral highground according to you. There's still ALOT more death, so it's dfferent because not as many die at once ? Just because it's spread out but the numbers are more than 400% that, then it's somehow different or are you jsut saying we should have left them alone to do so again. Yea right and we should have negotiated with Hitler too right and left him or his party in power. Look it up the Japanese were more heinous than the Germans in many ways. But hey, as long as you feel better about it.
It was imperative to end the Pacific war as soon as possible. American POW' were suffering appallingly; the civilian captives in Singapore and Hong Kong were in desperate straits. It seemed at least probable that many of them would be murdered within weeks as their captors sought to divert food and troops from the camps to military uses. Finally, the end of the war would mean an end to both American and Japanese casualties. The lessons of Okinawa and Iwo Jima remained fresh.
In the last five years, answers have emerged to the critical question surrounding the decision to drop the A-bomb: "What did President Truman know about the Japanese strength and when did he learn it?" President Truman knew a great deal, and none of it pointed to a speedy end of the conflict without the bomb or a battle for the Japanese homeland at awful cost. One hundred thousand Japanese defenders on Okinawa cost 48,000 US casualties, half the Japanese on Iwo Jima died.
A year ago the CIAs Center for the Study of Intelligence released intelligence reports gathered in the final months of the war, new information that should decisively shut the debate.
A note in Truman's own handwriting says that Gen. George C. Marshall's estimate of US casualties was about a quarter-million killed, wounded and missing. The actual estimate by the Joint War Plans Committee was 220,000 as of early June-close enough. However, we now know that this figure was based on a near-catastrophic underestimate of Japanese troop strength.
In May, US Intelligence estimated that Kyushu was the base for 246,000 Japanese, of whom 128,000 were in Army ground force units. Projecting forward to Nov. 1, the scheduled date for Operation Olympic, military analysts estimated that Japan could reinforce the island with 100,000 more soldiers for a total of about 350,000 troops.
But by June 16, Kyushu was already home to more Japanese divisions than had been considered the maximum number possible in November. In mid-July, US Intelligence turned up three more divisions on the island`, and by the end of the month yet another appeared, bringing the total to 12, including 10 combat divisions.
A week later, on August12, Japanese strength on Kyushu had soared to 579,000. General Charles Willoughby, Mac Arthur's intelligence chief, said of Japanese reinforcements, "the end is not in sight." Since the planned invasion force numbered 770,000 including the crews of the naval vessels supporting the landing, Willoughby suggested that the Americans and Japanese armies might have equal strength-not he said, "A recipe for victory."
Two days before Hiroshima, Japanese forces in Kyushu reached 600,000. Nine divisions faced the invasion beaches in the south, three times the force projected when Operation Olympic was planned. President Truman may not have known the final figures when he released the atomic weapons to the Air Force, but he and his closest advisors knew the magnitude of the forces arrayed against us.
The ability to move 360,000 troops to Kyushu between May and August demonstrated that Japan retained both the will and the ability to continue the war for months to come. Not only was the force in place but also so were the logistics and supplies to sustain it in the field against and invading army.
The cost of an invasion to both sides would have been horrendous. Japanese troops on Iwo Jima and Okinawa died rather than surrender; who can doubt that the defense of Japan itself would have been equally ferocious?
if US can use killing of innocent civilian by nukes to change the policies of another country in favour of its own, why can't terrorist use killing of innocent american civilian by planes to change the policies of US!
Well first of all Naeem, we were attacked maybe you heard that. It was 60 years ago. Also I find it odd that you can criticize much at all. I guess terrorists can target your countries civilians too since your country has been using the nuclear threat with India as well. Oh but that's different right ? Yea sure it is, ah the hypocrisy.
Offcourse terrorist can target my country as they are targeting BUT Gov. is not making it a political issue they are treating it same as other crimnal issues. terrorists are just crimnals and crimnal don't have any cause or religion, its evilness which is the cause and religion of terrorist.
As far as neuclear threat to india is concern we have made it clear to them IF our sovereignty and integrity will be in threat we will defently use Nukes. we will not let anyone to make us die and if anyone will try to do this we will make them die.
NATO had the same stand against russia during Cold War
BUT Pakistan has no intention to use nukes to change indian's hostile policies against Pakistan or we have no intention to use nukes to make india stop human right violations and brutality in indian occupied kashmir b'coz all these are political issues and we wanna deal it politicaly and will try to resolve all these issues in a manner that suits our geo-political interests. We will never use mass killing of innocent people to change the ground realities in favour of Pakistan.
Pakistan has accused India of launching a major attack on an army post inside Pakistani-administered Kashmir, as both countries prepared for talks with a high-profile US envoy.
The Pakistani authorities say their troops killed dozens of Indian soldiers carrying out what was described as an "unprovoked assault" in the Gultari section of the disputed territory on Thursday evening.
Perhaps you can clear this up, you seem to be contradicting yourself. In the same post you said.
As far as neuclear threat to india is concern we have made it clear to them IF our sovereignty and integrity will be in threat we will defently use Nukes. we will not let anyone to make us die and if anyone will try to do this we will make them die.
BUT Pakistan has no intention to use nukes to change indian's hostile policies against Pakistan or we have no intention to use nukes to make india stop human right violations and brutality in indian occupied kashmir b'coz all these are political issues and we wanna deal it politicaly and will try to resolve all these issues in a manner that suits our geo-political interests. We will never use mass killing of innocent people to change the ground realities in favour of Pakistan.
So you're saying in some cases you would use them ie: if your soverignity was threatened. Well Naeem that's exactly what we did 60 years ago, we were attacked and invaded. We wouldn't use them unless something similar happened again. So where you get the idea that we would use them is puzzling and incorrect.
Offcourse terrorist can target my country as they are targeting BUT Gov. is not making it a political issue they are treating it same as other crimnal issues. terrorists are just crimnals and crimnal don't have any cause or religion, its evilness which is the cause and religion of terrorist.
And that's the way we're treating it. Suffice it to say I believe Pakistan would do the same if it had been attacked and it would be justified in doing so. A few posts back you said.
if US can use killing of innocent civilian by nukes to change the policies of another country in favour of its own, why can't terrorist use killing of innocent american civilian by planes to change the policies of US!
But apparently you would do the same and again we wouldn't and aren't using them. Our soverignity was attacked. So you feel the terrorists are justified ? Hmmm seems to me that you're being very contradictory and hypocritical.
So, I think the attack on the trade center and the following bombing served very well to the national interests of the United States, not to mention the personal interests of Bush and his administration. While Al Kaida suffered an extraordinary ammount of casualties and lost most of its bases in Afghanistan.
Yes it was in our best interest to have 3,000 people die and our economy hurt. Yea good thinkin there Petey. Yea that's great for a country, perhaps your county could be attacked by extremists, that would be great for your national interests as well. Oh Al Quieda suffred heavy casualties, and that's somehow worse ? oh no not those lovely Alquieda folks, I hope they weren't hurt.
By the way, I never saw any proof that bin Laden is behind the attacks. I come to wonder. Bush has every single reason to organize the attack on Sept. 11. He also has the means to do it - it's easy enough to pay someone to find some angry arabs, tell them he's from Al Kaida, fill their heads with shit, and send them to die. The question is: Does Bush have the guts to do it? To take part in such a thing? In fact I don't know, and I think rather not. But I think you know your politicians better that me.
Ah so Bush found some angry Arabs, told them he was from AlQuieda and then gave them some money, even though he's a white guy from Texas. Yea, sure o.k Peter.
In fact I wonder why I was the only one to reach such suspicion, when it usually does not take long for most people to blame the US for similar conspiracies. But in fact this is not a "similar" conspiracy. The US president to take part in the murder of his own citizens? In fact I can't believe it myself, let alone convince anyone else. But I still think it is a rather unprobable coincidence that just after winning the elections with only a few percents advance before his oponent, Bush receives the perfect oportunity to show himself as a strong president.
Oh so you personally haven't seen any proof that Bin Laden was behind Sept 11. Well there's plenty of info on it look it up it's easily availible. And here's a tidbit for you that you're apparently too lazy to find out for yourself, so I'll tell ya' The plan was in the works for years before Bush was even president. So take your conspiracy theories and your UFO sightings and go join a cult. You have NO facts, just a sad pathetic and paranoid opinion. When you come up with any facts of your own then you can demand facts from others to satisfy your lunatic theories. Then again there's still people who think that the Holocaust didn't happen. Apparently they didn't see any proof.
Naemm put another good question: Why do most people treat the Sept.11 events as a military attack? While I do not agree with the concept of calling all criminals "evil", the fact remains that these terrorists were just criminals. Killers to be precise. They are dead, so, if someone is to be held trial, it's the leaders of their organization for encouraging them to commit this murder. They can and will be held responcible if they enter a country, which has an extradiction treaty with the US, and if sufficient proof is found that their organization is the one to send this people and the leaders did autorise that particular murder. Standart procedure dealing with criminals. It does not include opening war on a country, just because you do not have an extradiction treaty!!!
Hey that's a great idea. So anytime you're attacked and 3,000 people are murdered in cold blood, don't do anthing until the guy hopefully goes to a country that hopefully will do something about it and then hope that theirs an extradition agreement. Well Peter, we asked the Taliban to release Bin Laden, they refused. Naw let's just let people continue to murder because we don't have an extradition treaty. I guess that's easy for you to say since your family wasn't killed and your country wasn't attacked. Good thinking once again Peter. Have a swell day k'.
PROUD of mass murder of innocent men, women and children?
Is it racism that makes it impossible for you to separate "just folks" from imperialists?
Are they all simply "gooks" to you, Bill?
Or are you driven by a twisted outlook essentially identical to that of Osama and his bloody operatives?
Were all those prominent individuals in high authority, and in a position to really know, WRONG in voicing their informed belief that the bombings were unnecessary to bring about Japan's imminent defeat?
And that NO huge, costly invasion would have been required to achieve that result.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki constitute THE GREATEST WAR CRIME in human history.
What we did to those two cities' noncombatant populations -- to flex our muscles to the Soviets -- should haunt every one of us each day of our lives.
Shame on America for being the worst mass killer ever!
If our intentions had been as Truman and his apologists stated, then why didn't we stage a demonstration detonation to show the Japanese
government what an awful weapon we had?
And why did we HAVE to drop a SECOND bomb?
Bill, you're a constant, pushover patsy and a pawn for the official line.
Learn the great lessons of history, man, so they can't be used against you.
And used to the terrible detriment of our citizenry, as Bush is about
to do with his attack-Iraq madness.
Recognize how closely your outlook meshes with what's being described here?
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Don't defend your nation's lies and crimes just because you were born here.
How does being an acquiescing accomplice in America's sins serve our country's interest?
Or any conception of common, consistent decency?
Get your head on straight, soldier.
And keep your eyes peeled for the Gulf of Tonkin incident, deja vu.
DON'T BE BRAINWASHED BY THE MAN?
Corporate America has done a wonderful job of brainwashing the majority of Americans. It has been subtle, yet very effective.
The vast majority of Americans are working their lives away to earn money to acquire material junk that they never previously needed but now believe they cannot live without. While you bust your backs turning the cog wheel, the good ol' boys on top are scheming how to get richer quicker. Not only do they want to get richer quicker, but they want to become big enough to influence the government.
It is the corporations who run this world, not the people. It is infinite greed pushing into war. Look around people. We Americans are the most aggressive nation in the world. It is America who has the biggest , most powerful war weapons and the most guns. We have already or are about to take steps toward starting World War III.
As soon as President Bush and his boys in the military throw a nuclear bomb, we will get one back in our face. Then they will be flying back and forth and we will slowly be desensitized and accept it. This country has wreaked more violence on others than all the other nations combined. The next time you wave your war banner (flag), think about what you are really asking for. War is not going to make you safer, richer, or more patriotic. You have been duped.
--CATHY MILLER, Brule, Duluth News Tribune letter
It is infinite greed pushing into war.
It has nothing to do with the weapon creating machines that are working overtime in Iraq?
War is not going to make you safer, richer, or more patriotic. You have been duped.
Is allowing the likes of Sadam and Osama to aquire the means to mass destruction going to make us safer, richer, or more patriotic?
Killing of innocent people can not be justified by any reason whether its to STOP the war in favour of you.
if japanease emperor were doing human right violation with american POW or they were not ready to stop the war in favour of US, its does not mean US had the right to kill 500,000 innocent japaneas civilian.!
if US Gov. and policy makers support Israeli brutality its does not mean anyone got the licence to kill innocent american civilian as osama did at NY and pantagon!
if Saddam is not abandoning his powere it does not mean US got the licence to kill innocent Iraqi people!
terrorism whether its from state or a group its condemnable, no reason can justify terrify the innocent unarmed people.
terrorism can also not be justified to make know the pain of terrorism to the world!
You remember what I said earlier? That maybe the only positive result of these people's deaths is that at least the world had learned from this mistake? I take my words back. The death of these people, horrifying as it is, was also completely, totally in vain.
How many times have nuclear weapons been used in war since August 1945?
Dennis,
Well Denny, here's a news flash for you, they didn't have to be told we were attacked on 9-11. It was obvious to most folks that we were attacked all they had to do was look out the window. And that others are trying to do so again. I say that it's obvious to MOST folks because their are some including you who still don't get it and probalby never will until it's your town that's hit.
You and your ilk are exposing the country to danger. And with patriots like you, who needs enemies ? A patriot can and should question things, you however want this country to be nothing like it was intended to be, and that is free. In your sad little world it wouldn't even resemble America. And spare me the social justice equality anti capitalism rant we've heard it before and yea we get it, we're evil.
From the letter to the editor you posted Dennis.
Um Earth to Cathy, nobodys "throwing" nukes out. A little tip for you, we haven't used one since 45.
No Cathy, you're the dupe, you see Cathy, we were attacked, and they'd like to do so again, they're trying really hard, it's in all the papers. Try reading one. That's o.k you moron, we'll take care of protecting the nation.
Too bad we can't put all the people like Cathy and Co. on an island or perhaps in a town in Baghdad, Syria etc. with no protection whatsoever and a big sign saying unprotected Americans living here. i wonder how brave they'd be then. i wonder how fast they would beg for protection. Yes it's easy when you live in that ever so popular terrorist target like Brule. Then again it's always easy for those who don't have to do and let others do for them.
Peter,
Hey Peter, we do understand that and we haven't used one since. And it has in fact avoided wars. Unless their was one last week that missed the news, you're losing it.
Rob used the term "your ilk!!!!!"
Naeem,
It wasn't 500,000, Know your history before you post it.
How many civilians from other nations did the Japanese kill ? So you're right, we should have let them off the hook without an unconditional surrender. Easy for you to say if you didn't live in Nanking.
We support Palestine too, we send them money and are trying to get the Isralies to establish a state, we have held them back on numerous occasions from simply rolling over the Palestinian people. And a more important question to you is who supports Palestinain brutality ? You forgot to mention that i see.
Easy for you to say. Then again we aren't the ones releasing Alquieda prisoners and threatining nuclear war with India.
I know, ya just have to use it when you can, it's a fun word :)
Dennis,
You are, you say it everyday by apologizing for suicide bobmbings and terrorism. Sleeping o.k ?
Ahh that's it Denny, play the race card, you forgot to call him a Nazi.
No that would be your modeous operendi afterall you apologize for murder and terrorism daily.
All those "prominent" voices you herald didn't have to try to take a bloody piece of coral and sand. Much like you today.
Yes I'm sure they would have let us have a picnic in downtown Tokyo.
Really Denny ? You must have forgotten about Nanking, the Battan death march, The prison camps, the Manilla massacre etc. Oh and then their was those little Holocaust epsiodes and Stalin's death camps but hey, who's counting right.
Nope it should haunt the Japanese who decided to attack us and remember what they did to people.
Man you're laying it on thick now, you're now resorting to being a liar too, oh well, you have in the past so why stop the lying now.
Bill is a patriot, something you'd know ZIP about and as for the official line, yours is simply from the socialist party losers.
Dennis, you need to look at history and separate it from your socialist website lies and propoganda.
Then again if we could go back in history and put you in charge we'd all be speaking Japanese right now and waiting in line for our government bread.
"The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings constitute THE GREATEST WAR CRIME in history."
Nobody can rationally deny the veracity of that statement.
Trying to do so merely shows how some people will let their land of birth and a false "patriotism" associated with it...strip them of intellectual honesty and moral credibility.
"We" had to do it so "we" could win (even if the bombings weren't objectively required to achieve Japan's defeat).
I imagine the 9/11 murderers took a similar view, justifying their crime from the standpoint of their national/religious/ideological perspective, and couching it all in an aura of "necessity".
Bill tries to defend a monumental travesty by arguing that Japan attacked us first.
Well, the Third World can certainly point to prior U.S. assaults on their sovereign territories and upon their hallowed cultures, in a thousand and one inperialist instances, adding up to a keenly felt "need" to put an end to such aggressive, exploitative interference.
Via terrorism.
But terrorism that, simply because they're so relatively small and powerless, will invariably be on a vastly lesser scale than what we dropped on the playing children of Hiroshima and the washerwomen of Nagasaki.
Or what we did in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam era, with naplam, white phosphorus, B-52 saturation attacks, Agent Orange, and with anti-personnel bomblets spewing nylon shrapnel that couldn't be readily detected by x-rays, to the extent the Vietnamese had such equipment in their few real hospitals -- such as Bach Mai, which we bombed, more than once.
Or in so many places at different junctures along such a long time path that it strangles the soul, or should, just to think about.
Our historical brutality -- employed not out of any actual, imperative desperation such as Palestinians have been forced to resort to against Israel's titanic, uncompromising occupation -- has all too often been utilized for crassly opportunistic, self-serving purposes.
To make the world's human and natural resources freely and cheaply available for Western (mainly American) special interests.
For predacious corporations and greedy banks.
Occasionally, someone from the inside comes clean about what really motivates us.
Such as Smedley Butler, the former Marine Corps Commandant, who admitted to being "a racketeer for Wall Street". Or Dwight Eisenhower, who acknowledged that our actual purpose for being in Indochina was its "tin, tungsten and rubber" -- and that the Communist
Ho Chi Minh would have won "80%" of a free Vietnamese vote, had we allowed it.
58,000 names on the wall.
For abject profit lust.
There isn't anyone or anything the American military/industrial complex won't kill for a fast, easy buck and decisive control over somebody else's country.
Bring on the sacrificial babies, schoolgirls, and doddering old men of Iraq.
Oil is more valuable, right?
---
Thousands of Americans died in Vietnam because a handful of Washington bureaucrats were too drunk with their own machismo to chart a different course.
We mustn't stand by and watch this happen again.
--Robert Steinback, Miami Herald
LOL
WE KILLED OUR OWN!
The bombing of Japanese cities continued the strategy of saturation bombing to destroy civilian morale; one nighttime fire-bombing of Tokyo took 80,000 lives. (Zinn points out in the book that "nighttime bombing" was by its very nature indiscriminate, not aimed primarily at military targets.)
And then, on August 6, 1945, came the lone American plane in the sky over Hiroshima, dropping the first atomic bomb, leaving perhaps 100,000 Japanese dead, and tens of thousands more slowly dying from radiation poisoning.
Twelve U.S. navy fliers in the Hiroshima city jail were killed in the bombing, a fact that the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged, according to historian Martin Sherwin ("A World Destroyed").
Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki, with perhaps 50,000 killed.
The justification for these atrocities was that this would end the war quickly, making unnecessary an invasion of Japan. Such an invasion would cost a huge number of lives, the government said — a million, according to Secretary of State Byrnes; half a million, Truman claimed was the figure given by General George Marshall. (When the papers of the Manhattan Project — the project to build the atom bomb — were released years later, they showed that Marshall urged a warning to the Japanese about the bomb, so people could be removed and only military targets hit.)
These estimates of invasion losses were not realistic, and seem to have been pulled out of the air to justify bombings which, as their effects became known, horrified more and more people.
Japan, by August 1945, was in desperate shape and ready to surrender. A New York Times military analyst wrote, shortly after the war:
"The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26."
Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
But could American leaders have known this in August 1945?
(continued)
The answer is, clearly, yes. The Japanese code had been broken, and Japan's messages were being intercepted.
It was known the Japanese had instructed their ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. Japanese leaders had begun talking of surrender a year before this, and the Emperor himself had begun to suggest, in June 1945, that alternatives to fighting to the end be considered.
On July 13, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: "Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace." Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant historical documents, concludes: "Having broken the Japanese code before the war, American Intelligence was able to — and did — relay this message to the President, but it had no effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to conclusion."
If only Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender — that is, if they were willing to accept one condition to the surrender, that the Emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place — the Japanese would have agreed to stop the war.
Why did the United States not take that small step to save both American and Japanese lives? Was it because too much money and effort had been invested in the atomic bomb not to drop it? General Leslie Groves, head of the Manhattan Project, described Truman as a man on a toboggan, the momentum too great to stop it.
Or was it, as British scientist P.M.S. Blackett suggested ("Fear, War, and the Bomb"), that the United States was anxious to drop the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan?
The Russians had secretly agreed (they were officially not at war with Japan) they would come into the war ninety days after the end of the European war. That turned out to be May 8, and so, on August 8, the Russians were due to declare war on Japan.
But by then the big bomb had been dropped, and the next day a second one would be dropped on Nagasaki; the Japanese would surrender to the United States, not the Russians, and the United States would be the occupier of postwar Japan.
In other words, Blackett says, the dropping of the bomb was "the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia."
Blackett is supported by American historian Gar Alperovitz ("Atomic Diplomacy"), who notes a diary entry for July 28, 1945, by Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, describing Secretary of State James F. Byrnes as
"most anxious to get the Japanese affair over with before the Russians got in."
Truman had said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar was possible, the killing of civilians."
It was a preposterous statement. Those 100,000 killed in Hiroshima were almost all civilians. The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey said in its official report:
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."
The dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki seems to have been scheduled in advance, and no one has ever been able to explain why it was dropped. Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb? Were the dead and irradiated of Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment?
Martin Sherwin says that among the Nagasaki dead were probably American prisoners of war. He notes a message of July 31 from Headquarters, U.S. Strategic Air Forces, Guam, to the War Department:
"Reports prisoner of war sources, not verified by photos, given location of Allied prisoner of war camp one mile north of center of city of Nagasaki. Does this influence the choice of this target for initial Centerboard operation? Request immediate reply."
The reply: "Targets previously assigned for Centerboard remain unchanged."
--From Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and The Political Literacy Course of the Common Courage Press
Peter,
Yes you did take it the wrong way. Today we also have the vision of highinsight. It's a grand gift that we have. We didn't have the luxury of knowing back then what we do now. Was it justified then ? I'm sure you'll say no. Then again you weren't one of the people who would have had to very possibly die to find out. You weren't the one who was attacked. It's easy to say from the comfort of a computer and with the distance of time. It's a horrible weapon. One that people probably couldn't fathom without seeing what it could actually do. I can say with realative confidence that that horrid weapon has averted some wars and has probably saved lives. Would we ever use them again. Doubtful, unless we were provoked in a way that left us no other options ie: we were attacked with nukes. Other than another nation sending nukes our way I doubt you'd ever see it happen. We didn't use them after 9-11 so if we didn't then I doubt we ever would unless we were attacked first. We are also trying to work on a missle defense program so that it wouldn't be our only option and the same people who bitch about Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the same ones who bitch about trying an alternative.
civilain deaths in WW2.
Country Military Civilian Total
 Soviet Union* 8,668,000 16,900,000 25,568,000
 China 1,324,000 10,000,000 11,324,000
 Germany 3,250,000 3,810,000 7,060,000
 Poland 850,000 6,000,000 6,850,000
 Japan 1,506,000 300,000 1,806,000
 Yugoslavia 300,000 1,400,000 1,700,000
 Rumania* 520,000 465,000 985,000
 France* 340,000 470,000 810,000
 Hungary* 750,000
 Austria 380,000 145,000 525,000
 Greece* 520,000
 Italy 330,000 80,000 410,000
 Czechoslovakia 400,000
 Great Britain 326,000 62,000 388,000
 USA 295,000 295,000
 Holland 14,000 236,000 250,000
 Belgium 10,000 75,000 85,000
 Finland 79,000 79,000
 Canada 42,000 42,000
 India 36,000 *** 36,000
 Australia 29,000 29,000
 Spain** 12,000 10,000 22,000
 Bulgaria 19,000 2,000 21,000
 New Zealand 12,000 12,000
 South Africa 9,000 9,000
 Norway 5,000 5,000
 Denmark 4,000 4,000
Total circa 61 Million
That's 40,034,000 Million, yes Million. civilians killed !
http://www.stokesey.demon.co.uk/wwii/casualty.html
Oh that's right I forgot Dennis we are still the largest killer of all time, yea , right. and we're evil too.
Peter,
You mean lives, not effort it saved, and guess what it saved theirs too in the long run, if you know anything about the Japanese in that period then you would know they were no where near surrender. If you can't see that or admit it then you are being dishonest to yourself. And guess what Peter and Dennis. WE OFFERED A SURRENDER PRIOR TO USING THE BOMB AND THEY SAID NO! Of ocurse it's too convienent to remember that little fact.
So Peter and Dennis here's some facts that perhaps you overlooked. It won't matter in your eyes I'm sure but at least your efforts to mislead are exposed. Maybe you don't do it intentionally i don't know but here you are.
...
Did you catch that ? No facts are too hard for some to grasp.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~dyue/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has raised the question of whether we were justified, or could we have achieved the same end using conventional weapons. This is my attempt to present statistical justification for unleashing the awesome destructive power of the A-bomb on Japan.
August 14, 1945 was a day of celebration and thanksgiving, for it marked the end of the most destructive conflict in human history. It was the day Japan unconditionally surrendered. The instrument that dealt the final blows to theJapanese Empire was the A-bomb. But for some, time had slowly replaced the joy and elation of that victory with a creeping, gnawing feeling of guilt and recrimination.
The theater of war has always been full of human sufferings, but never had its two main characters, death and destruction, been so horribly portrayed as in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Though regret fills our hearts that so many had to die to achieve our victory, we cannot let our compassion cloud our judgment of those two nuclear detonations. To be impartial critics, we must base our reviews on each and every act that led to the final curtain. We must examine the chain of events that caused the decision to use such an awesome weapon.
Japan was a nation bound in unity by culture and tradition. Her people obeyed their emperor without question. To them he is not a man....he is god. To die for him was an honor and to shirk death was to suffer humiliation. They believed in the righteousness of their cause and that ultimate victory would be theirs. These beliefs made the Japanese a formidable foe, unafraid to die for the glory of their country and their emperor; it made our campaign for final victory a war of attrition.
FromGuadalcanal to the Marianas, from the Philippines to the Ryukus, suicidal Japanese forces made step-by-step extermination necessary. Japanese survivors were practically non-existent. Civilian casualties were also high and the toll on our troops was staggering. Two of the bloodiest battles were for Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Iwo Jima, an island about five miles long, was invaded by 75,144 American assault troops. Of over 20,000 Japanese troops there, only 212 survived. An actual death count of 13,234 was made and another 8,070 were estimated to be buried or sealed in caves. Our troops suffered 4,590 dead, 15,954 wounded, and 301 missing. The carnage to say the least, was excessive for the size of real estate involved.
Okinawa, an island 60 miles long and varying from 2 - 18 miles wide, with a population of 435,000, was invaded shortly after Iwo Jima. The Japanese military strength was 77,199 and 83 days of fighting left a wake of 110,071 known Japanese dead, 7,400 military prisoners, 12,520 American dead or missing, 36,631 wounded. From the figures cited, it could be concluded that local civilians also suffered a tremendous number of casualties.
After Okinawa, the invasion of Japan would have been the next logical step, had it not been for the A-bomb. Plans were already made for the invasion, but were shelved in favor of a nuclear attack. There are many possible reason, but for the purpose of speculation, let us examine one possibility.
Japan had an estimated population of 82,636,000 and consisted of four main islands. She had an indented coastline, measuring 17,150 miles and heavily defended. Militarily, Japan was a nightmare to invade. Invasion could be done only at a great loss of lives, both American and Japanese. The nature of her coastline could prove devastating to any invasion force. That, plus the pattern set by the Japanese in previous battles, made invasion too costly to undertake. As the lesser of two evils, the decision to use the A-bomb, if Japan refuse to surrender, was made. A warning was given to that effect, but was not heeded.
On August 6, 1945, the first A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a city with a population of 343,969. The resulting casualties were 78,150 dead, 37,425 injured, and 13,983 missing. Nagasaki, with a population of 252,630, was bombed three days later. A commission on the bombing released a report showing 73,884 died as a result of that holocaust.
Without letting the cloud of nuclear fears impair our reasons, let us sort the aforementioned statistics and render our judgment.
I find that the bombings eliminated the necessity of sacrificing more lives and therefore justified.
http://jimwaltz0.tripod.com/abomb.html
I'm sure that no matter what is posted you'll see it different.You claim they would have surrendered. That's a fallacy. They were given the chance and DECLINED ! Pick up a book. The only way they would have even remotely considered surrendering was by maintaining their land and Imperical system with the emporer still fanning their nationalistic and zealous murrderous ways. They slaughtered millions of civilians. Would we have let Hitler stay in power ? of course not. They killed and torured millions far more than the A-bobmbs that ended that slaughter and yet we are the ones taken to task ? They were no different than the Germans. We were attacked and brought into a war. We rebuilt thier cities and economy and gave it back. And yet we are the bad guy ? Why no outcry over civilian losses about German citizens ? The Japanese were worse in many ways. Well I'm sure you'd have had no problem leaving old Adolf in charge then too.
Of course it's easy if you weren't an 18 year old kid from Kansas who had to be one of millions on both sides to die if the war had prolonged itself. You have that luxury, they didn't. It's easy for you. Way too easy as a matter of fact.
Odd thing though, I spent some time In Japan and never once saw anger or resentment from the people, they felt shame over WW2. Were they happy about it ? i'm sure not it was a sad moment for their nation. And the bobmbings were a horrid reminnder. Funny you would say that the world looked at it and we are still hated for it today. They seem to have been able to put it in the past and move forward as allies. Their opinion matters more to me since it was they who endured it. How sad some who weren't even involved or born use it for political advantage.
Israel has moved back, and steps are being taken to ease the tension.
I say the closer the two sides get to a substantive agreement of any kind, the more likely it is there will be another suicide bombing.
An easing of tension is the best reason for Isrealis to feel tense. I bet experience tells them that.
My father passed away this morning.
As many of you know, having read my several posts about him over time, and of him having been an eyewitness to Hiroshima's devastation, he would have been part of that "huge and costly" invasion that reactionary disinformation continues to preposterously claim would have been "mandatory" to bring about Japan's capitulation.
Having personally seen the destruction that we inflicted on Japan, not just by nuclear means, he categorically rejected that contention as a bald-faced, manipulative lie.
There was nothing left of Japanese civil society, let alone its
decimated military.
He SAW the direct opposite of what you foolishly insist was the contrary, based on the miscalculations and/or distortions of some at the time, and the mythical apologia concocted since to shield us from an unspeakably evil truth.
Contrary to the atom bombs ending the war "early", learned souls such as Stewart Udall have posited that waiting around for their development and "opportune" use...actually extended the war artificially, costing many lives.
Eisenhower, Hoover, MacArthur and a host of other
prominent figures from the period -- plus America's own Strategic Bombing Survey -- expressed views that Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have to happen.
Moreover, many of these beliefs were stated well before the bombs fell:
April: General Curtis le May (US Air Force) said that the war could be ended by September or October without an invasion.
May 12: William Donovan, Director of the Office of Strategic Studies, reported to President Truman that Shuichi Kate, Japan's Minister to Switzerland, wished to "help arrange for a cessation of hostilities."
Mid-June: "A surrender of Japan can be arranged with terms that can be accepted by Japan and that will make fully satisfactory provision for America's defense against future trans-Pacific aggression." Admiral W.D. Leahy, President's Chief of Staff.
The series of surrender-seeking contacts the Japanese
had with the Soviets in the months before August are thoroughly documented, and WERE made known to the U.S. via direct communication from Stalin to Roosevelt, among others.
And here's the pivotal point Rob completely overlooks:
"When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it LATER DID ANYWAY, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
--Norman Cousins, consultant to MacArthur during the occupation
Truman delayed Japan's surrender needlessly by insisting on deposing the Emperor (shades of Bush wishing to get rid of Saddam!), but then
agreed to the imperial apparatus being retained, after all.
After the two A-bombs left nothing of countless kids but "shadows" burned onto adjacent concrete.
Admiral William D. Leahy put it perhaps the best:
"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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that 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."
And former president Herbert Hoover said:
"The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul."
Palestinian suicide bombers, who wouldn't exist if Israel weren't so ruthlessly obstructionist to necessary justice, offend your sensibilities.
But Hiroshima and Nagasaki DON'T?!
By the way, Rob, the civilian casualties that you list from WWII are
the consequence of what happens when capitalism degenerates into
full-blown, barbaric fascism...a trend you certainly haven't resisted, as it's been manifested in various aspects of the War on Terrorism, particularly the assaults on sacred American liberties.
I see you as someone who wouldn't have said "boo", had you been living in Germany as Hitler was driving it toward abject authoritarianism, and war.
Nationalism and conservatism always produce the same terrible results.
http://www.dawn.com/2002/08/22/top18.htm
GAZA CITY, Aug 21: Israeli forces blasted their way into a Gaza town on Wednesday, killing a Palestinian civilian and wounding four more in an operation to root out militants, as fresh violence threatened to cripple the latest efforts to restore calm.
Israel tanks and infantry stormed into the southern Gaza Strip town of Khan Yunis in the small hours of the day, sending residents of the bullet-scarred refugee camp scattering. The troops ordered the evacuation of two high buildings overlooking the neighbouring Jewish settlement of Gush Katif.
The blast also destroyed 15 small refugee houses in the immediate vicinity and damaged another 22, Palestinian security officials said.
One man was crushed to death when the blast and falling debris obliterated his house, Palestinian officials said.-AFP
Can all these brutality bring peace and stability for Israel !?? violence always produce violence
Simply by TRYING to defend the atrocity of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you've painted yourself into a moral corner, Rob.
You've made it abundantly clear that you condone the mass murder of innocent men, women and children when you think doing so "gets the job done" for "our" side.
Doubtlessly the same rationale is used by Al Qaida in connection with 9/11.
And Palestinian suicide bombers.
One can't refrain from condemning the worst terrorism of the mighty and hope to retain ethical authority in criticizing the least terrorism -- the flawed freedom fighting -- of the
desperate oppressed.
America's chief failure since last September has been its stubborn refusal to address the prior, greater, TRIGGERING sins of itself...to which justifiably angered peoples all across the globe are responding, often with terrible violence.
That inability -- which Osama no doubt took into careful consideration as he masterminded how we would react -- could prove to be our fatal undoing.
By striking back blindly (and with mass, indiscriminate violence of our own that now entails a definite nuclear threat), we will just make more enemies, permanently, until all of humanity stands arrayed against us.
We need to clean up our own horrendous act before hypocritically
accusing others.
What is it, if not racism, that allows for the pervasive assumption that it's preferable to sacrifice little Japanese kids at play, their chore-doing mothers, and old men reminiscing about the past...rather than lose predominantly white, American soldiers?
Sorry for your loss, Dennis.
Your father would be proud of your uwavering defense of his beliefs.
My condolences, Dennis.
Best wishes to you and your family.
LUV2FLY, you are my hero!
:-)
My condolences for you, offcourse you have a greate loss, parents are unreplaceable!
if US can use killing of innocent civilian by nukes to change the policies of another country in favour of its own, why can't terrorist use killing of innocent american civilian by planes to change the policies of US!
:-)
Innocent civilians?
We were at war.
Besides, unlike the United States during the war with Japan, terrorists are without legitimate authority.
Naeem:
I often read about the Madrassas schools in Pakistan. Do you know anything about them and what's being taught there now?
Dennis,
Sorry to hear of your fathers passing. My condolences to you and your family in this time of grief. From what you had said he had been ill but it never makes it easier. It's hard to lose the person who helped guide and shape you. Sorry for your loss.
If you still feel up for debate I would take issue with a few things.
you stated.....
I could say the same for you and that your in a corner as well. You decry our use of the bomb 60 years ago and defend or find reason or validity for what the Palestinains do. Both killed civilians so apparently you, support or understand and or condone one and condem the other. You know the line you have said defending the Palestininans many times "By any means nesescary" I guess the majority in Aug 1945 felt it was the only way to prevent MASSIVE casualties. So it was by "any means nessecary" that that they brought about a swift end to the war that also as a side benefit saved probably a million or more Japanese lives as well. So one was meant to end a war and save lives in the long run (which it did) and the other was to simply kill to make a political statement or start a war. So it all comes down to deciding whom was more justified. I think we know whose side you come down on with that issue.
I haven't painted myself into any corner Dennis. The reason you don't see it is that there IS a difference between right and wrong and a difference between war and terrorism there is a difference in motive as well. First of all we were attacked unprovoked and by suprise, (that's twice now). Oh sure they had reasons just as Alquieda claim to have. Neither of which gave them an excuse or could justify their attack. The difference is that one side is right and one is wrong. It's that simple. It's black and white, as hard as it is for you to see your country in a positive light, it's still true.
Dennis,
I'm not sure what branch or where your father served but both my Grandfathers served in WW2 in the Pacific and thier assesment was 180 degrees different than that. They also SAW first hand the extent it's soilders and civilians would go to. to defend ther God and Emporer. Take a look at any battle for stark evidence of that. Look how many surrendered or civilians threw themseleves and their children off cliffs in Okniawa rather than surrender. Their military in numbers was in the MILLIONS and they trained every civilian to fight. And they would have to the last.
Oh yes Dennis another attempt to blame capatalism on all those deaths. Gee Dennis, Did you look at Russia's. They were communist. What a joke, I have heard you say some funny things but that's the funniest. Theres zero connection but nice try, wow you're dishonest.
In short, BULLSHIT Dennis. Yes I'm sure seeing as how brave you are with a computer and all the battles you've fought in you'd have stood up to Adolf. You'd have let him walk into downtown Superior. Yes try to tie me in as a Nazi sympathizer get a new tactic, your out of material Dennis, get a new bag. Well at least you didn't call me a racist since you disagreed with me. But go ahead and throw that in too, it just makes your bullshit easier to see through. You'd probably have been the one to try to tell the nations that were attacked how it was all their fault and justified it just as you do terroism. I can hear it now, well France and England even though Adolf is a bad guy you must realize it's the injustices as the result of the tyranical nature of the treaty of Versailles. What a hoot you are Dennis. Time to take yourt meds, o.k.
yes and communism and socialism is doing so well......(snicker)
Seems This article was written for Dennis.
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/nukeweap/hiroshima/hiroshima.htm
A few more thoughts for our residient revisionists.
No one would argue that atomic or nuclear weapons are horrific. They are a tool of war and war in itself is a horrid, horrid thing. The arguments made by those who wish to revise history or find fault with the decision to do so are blessed with the gift of highinsight and the comfort of knowing that they didn't have to face a fanatical enemy who would fight to the last man woman and child to fight for their god. Surrender was considered it's own death to the Japanese. They were dead to their god and to their families if they did so. And they did and would have fought viciously.
Their fanatacism was similar but even more horrid to the Germans. For theirs was drivne by religion as well as nationalism. Their attrocities are a much longer list than the Nazi's. They killed, tortured, murdred, enslaved and raped a much larger number of people but little attention is paid to that. They, like the Nazi's and the terrorists of today are blinded by a hatred of all who are different, they see and saw themselves as superior. With the exceptions of the Nazi's the other two fight with a religious zeal on top of their hatred.
The revisionists will say they were close to surrender but Dennis and Co. will never or rarely will answer this.........
If they were close to surrender then why didn't they ? If their military was so decimated as they claim even though they can't back it up, then why didn't they when they were given the chance BEFORE the bomb was used ? If things were that bad then they should have but they didn't because they had plenty of people. If they were so close to surrender as you claim, why didn't they surrender right after Hiroshima when they were again given that chance and didn't until the second one was used? I guess showing them one in Nevada would have really done it eh? Were the soilders and people going to suddenly change those same fanatical tactics when we invaded their home islands ? They would have fought even more fiercely.
Surrender would have only happened if the Japanese had it on their terms. Which would mean leaving the empire in place and the Emporer in power. That would have kept alive the same problems that started their wars 10 years previously. They murdered MILLIONS MORE people and were worse in many ways than the Germans. The bombings of Dresden killed more but not much is written about that. Why ? because people saw it for what it was, the way to bring the war to an end and an eventual peace. They knew the evil of the Nazi's and knew they had to be stopped. SO revisionists, should we have negotiated a surrender with Hitler and the Nazi's ? That's the difference, they surrendered because they saw the outcome. Japan wouldn't and didn't. But I'm curious to know from the revisionists since they know better. Should we have negotiated a peace with Hitler ?
Let's say that we had foregone using the bomb and invaded the island
as some say we should have done. O.K now there's probably 1/2 to 1 million more U.S casualties and 3 million or more Japanese casualties.
O.K and the civilian casualties would have been even greater. In the preemptive bombing etc. O.K great so we didn't use the bomb, now we feel better and can claim the moral highground according to you. There's still ALOT more death, so it's dfferent because not as many die at once ? Just because it's spread out but the numbers are more than 400% that, then it's somehow different or are you jsut saying we should have left them alone to do so again. Yea right and we should have negotiated with Hitler too right and left him or his party in power. Look it up the Japanese were more heinous than the Germans in many ways. But hey, as long as you feel better about it.
http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/a-bomb.html
Naeem,
You said,
Well first of all Naeem, we were attacked maybe you heard that. It was 60 years ago. Also I find it odd that you can criticize much at all. I guess terrorists can target your countries civilians too since your country has been using the nuclear threat with India as well. Oh but that's different right ? Yea sure it is, ah the hypocrisy.
Thanks to all for your kind expressions of sympathy.
Offcourse terrorist can target my country as they are targeting BUT Gov. is not making it a political issue they are treating it same as other crimnal issues. terrorists are just crimnals and crimnal don't have any cause or religion, its evilness which is the cause and religion of terrorist.
As far as neuclear threat to india is concern we have made it clear to them IF our sovereignty and integrity will be in threat we will defently use Nukes. we will not let anyone to make us die and if anyone will try to do this we will make them die.
NATO had the same stand against russia during Cold War
BUT Pakistan has no intention to use nukes to change indian's hostile policies against Pakistan or we have no intention to use nukes to make india stop human right violations and brutality in indian occupied kashmir b'coz all these are political issues and we wanna deal it politicaly and will try to resolve all these issues in a manner that suits our geo-political interests. We will never use mass killing of innocent people to change the ground realities in favour of Pakistan.
We are tolerating all these nonsenses from indian side since last 12 years
Pakistan accuses India of major attack
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2211812.stm
Pakistan has accused India of launching a major attack on an army post inside Pakistani-administered Kashmir, as both countries prepared for talks with a high-profile US envoy.
The Pakistani authorities say their troops killed dozens of Indian soldiers carrying out what was described as an "unprovoked assault" in the Gultari section of the disputed territory on Thursday evening.
Thanks Bill, you too :)
Naeem,
Perhaps you can clear this up, you seem to be contradicting yourself. In the same post you said.
So you're saying in some cases you would use them ie: if your soverignity was threatened. Well Naeem that's exactly what we did 60 years ago, we were attacked and invaded. We wouldn't use them unless something similar happened again. So where you get the idea that we would use them is puzzling and incorrect.
And that's the way we're treating it. Suffice it to say I believe Pakistan would do the same if it had been attacked and it would be justified in doing so. A few posts back you said.
But apparently you would do the same and again we wouldn't and aren't using them. Our soverignity was attacked. So you feel the terrorists are justified ? Hmmm seems to me that you're being very contradictory and hypocritical.
Peter,
Yes it was in our best interest to have 3,000 people die and our economy hurt. Yea good thinkin there Petey. Yea that's great for a country, perhaps your county could be attacked by extremists, that would be great for your national interests as well. Oh Al Quieda suffred heavy casualties, and that's somehow worse ? oh no not those lovely Alquieda folks, I hope they weren't hurt.
Ah so Bush found some angry Arabs, told them he was from AlQuieda and then gave them some money, even though he's a white guy from Texas. Yea, sure o.k Peter.
Oh so you personally haven't seen any proof that Bin Laden was behind Sept 11. Well there's plenty of info on it look it up it's easily availible. And here's a tidbit for you that you're apparently too lazy to find out for yourself, so I'll tell ya' The plan was in the works for years before Bush was even president. So take your conspiracy theories and your UFO sightings and go join a cult. You have NO facts, just a sad pathetic and paranoid opinion. When you come up with any facts of your own then you can demand facts from others to satisfy your lunatic theories. Then again there's still people who think that the Holocaust didn't happen. Apparently they didn't see any proof.
Peter,
Hey that's a great idea. So anytime you're attacked and 3,000 people are murdered in cold blood, don't do anthing until the guy hopefully goes to a country that hopefully will do something about it and then hope that theirs an extradition agreement. Well Peter, we asked the Taliban to release Bin Laden, they refused. Naw let's just let people continue to murder because we don't have an extradition treaty. I guess that's easy for you to say since your family wasn't killed and your country wasn't attacked. Good thinking once again Peter. Have a swell day k'.
"You can eat-shit, you Frenchman."
?????
Peter Lefterov 8/23/02 9:14am
Are you for real or are you a muslim... They are the only ones with these kind of conspiracy theories...
And of course the only ones that deny the obvious, that September 11th was an attack by radical Islam on the West...
Welcome Piti, maybe you and I will actually agree on this subject?
:-)