Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Thank God for the Atom Bomb"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by SnowLeopard View Post
    If one is going to take a violent attitude against kidnapping, then at least take a lesson from the Soviets. Don't respond with military forces; respond with covert forces.

    Some Soviet citizens were kidnapped in Beirut. The KGB responded by finding a major sympathsizer, killing some of his family, AND then started talking. "We want our people back."--KGB
    "But I don't have anything to do with that!"--confederate
    "We don't care. We want our people back in 24 hours or we'll do more of what we just did." Within 24 hours, the Soviet citizens were released and hardly any Soviet citizens were kidnapped after that.--(w,stte), not well known but not classified intel story from the 80's.
    I saw that on the History channel. That sympathizer wasn't just killed. He was dismembered and tossed at the door of his office in trash bags. The Soviets don't mess around.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
      I saw that on the History channel. That sympathizer wasn't just killed. He was dismembered and tossed at the door of his office in trash bags. The Soviets don't mess around.
      Well, in the 80's, it wasn't very well known. I was at a briefing with the Captain and Commanders around and this story came up. It was the first they had heard of it, maybe even a little surprised, and me, a little O-2 (or even an O-1) knew of it completely. Just one of those things when your life revolves in such circles, I suppose. I don't think I read it in the daily intelligence traffic (it would have been secret then), but I did come across it somewhere.

      On a side note. In the 90's we were evaluating, in class, various intel agencies. MOSSAD was at the top of the list but the KGB, when it existed, wasn't. Why not? They were excellent at killing people but not as efficient in other matters.

      Side point two: whenever someone, real, in fiction, uses my problem becomes your problem because I make it your problem, especially with the use of violence, I refer to it as using KGB tactics.
      -----------------------------------------------
      ("This use to be the KGB safehouse, now it is the regional headquarters for the FSB. New management, same friendly service."--Zukovsky, (wtte), "The World is Not Enough")

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SnowLeopard View Post
        Or modern society has learned the implications of this truth. How far in the past are we talking about? Before telecommunications where if one laid destruction down it could be weeks before the rest of the world knew? Before aircraft or chemical warfare where retribution for an act can occur the next day? Before the Industrial Age?

        Let me tell you a story where one man demonstrated how much of a trigger one man and anger can be. He committed a capital crime in another country. That country demanded of his home country that the people responsible be handed over or else it was war. The home country refused. The injured country went to war.............and the result was World War One.

        So, how far in the past are we talking about that this method worked?
        -----------------------------------------------------
        ("Well, it worked in rehersal."--man on Timex commercial after the elephant smashed the watch, (w,stte), an old Timex commercial)
        Actually, the Austro-Hungarian demands amounte dto Serbia giving up its sovergienty and yet Serbia still agreed but was rebuffed by the Hapsburg Chancellor who wanted the glory of conquest.

        In early 1945 the Nazi's had armed partisan groups called werewolfs to harrass the allies. Eisenhower worried about this threat reacted in a very matter of fact manner. He issued orders that any German civillian caught bearing arms of any type would be shot on sight. No American was ever killed by partisan activity in Germany.

        in 1967 the USSR conducted a partial mobalisation to try and help her cleints vs Israel, the LBJ reacted by sendign in the USN and the USSR backed down she wasn't prepare dot pay the price, we were.

        In the 1990's Serbia was not prepared to cut support for its partisans in Bosnia until NATO finally acted, later in Kosovo, Serbia tired to stand fast only to see their nation reduced to third world status and having the Danube blocked but, she finally backed down.

        In the 1980's Iran tried to take its war with Iraq, to Iraq's gulf state neighbors with the Tanker War, the USN smashed the Iranian navy.

        Force, raw naked force has settled more issues than any other factor in history.

        Comment


        • Ok I tried to read all the way through to make sure I didn't repeat anything but after 5 pages I had to respond.

          Originally posted by percentage_plyr View Post
          maybe im sounding silly here....

          but couldnt the americans have just used 1 nuke instead of 2 and achieved the same effectiveness with half the human-life damage?
          I recently did a research paper on the bombings. After the 1st bomb the Japanese were still very much for sticking out the war. The military cabinet did not want to surrender. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the few officials that were arguing for peace were able to convince the Emperor to surrender.

          On a humanitarian point of view, yah it sucked that we had to drop the bombs. I personally believe that it was needed but I won't deny that hitting two civilian cities sucks. But hey war is hell.

          Also even though the use of the nukes sucked, it taught everyone a lesson about nuke warfare. Before we used the bombs, we didn't really know what they would do. Yes we knew it made a big boom and whatever. What we didn't know is how it would work when dropped on a city. With the use of the two bombs, and the large amount of research that has gone into the effects, we know what using these weapons really means.

          It is like a child burning their hand on the stove. The kid will kick and scream and have a scar on their hand, but they aren't that worse for the wear. Also they know not to go near the stove anymore.

          Now that nukes are also even more powerful than the two used, I am glad that we have seen how gnarly of a weapon they are. I'm not saying that countries would be willing to throw them around like normal bombs, but now they know how serious they are.

          Also I am so thankful that we used them when we were the only ones with them. Can you imagine if the first use of the bombs was when everyone, or even a few super powers had them?

          I voted yes.
          MT . . .

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Militarythinker View Post
            recently did a research paper on the bombings. After the 1st bomb the Japanese were still very much for sticking out the war. The military cabinet did not want to surrender. It wasn't until after the 2nd bomb that the few officials that were arguing for peace were able to convince the Emperor to surrender.
            Hirohito didn't want war, and didn't need any convincing. He would have ended it if he had the power; it was, as you said, the cabinet that didn't want to surrender. And you were right when you said that it needed two bombs to convince them to end the war. I was going to say the same.

            We nuked Japan because the only other alternative was to invade Japan, and if we invaded Japan, there would have been 30 million dead Japanese instead of about 100,000-no one knows the exact number. As a matter of fact, more people died at Dresden then at Hiroshima, and Nagasaki combined. U.S. intelligence said at the eve of Japan's surrender that no one in Japan could be considered civilians: they said that Japan would have to be treated as a nation of armed combatants if we invaded. Millions would have died. On top of that, we would have failed because it would be thousands of times worse than Iraq could ever be, and American lives, and influence in more important than a mere 100,000 lives. I know that it sounds cold and cruel, but it's called war, and it was necessary. In war, if you have the choice between them, and us: 20, and ten; you always choose them, and 20. Why? Because we are more important than them-this is nationalism (and I'm not talking about the United States exclusively), and 10 is less than 20.

            In case you couldn't figure it out, I voted yes.
            "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."
            - Thomas Jefferson

            Comment


            • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
              No no no...it's "anti-war leftist hippie know-it-all" b!itch about the bomb.

              Not "anti-war leftist hippie know-it-all b!itch..."

              From the blog

              ""Don't mess with the US"? Retaliation? This is BS. America is no better than the Nazi regime...at least the Nazis didn't hide their goals..."

              There are so many Nazi secrets opened up just after their surrenders...

              "- Which stupid bastard said he wanted a war with Europe? Perhaps I will remind you the economic power and the military power of Europe is 2 times bigger then the US.And you are not the only country who has nukes."

              Is that a joke???

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                In all reality, the time to get the Japanese to apologize for anything is long past. Those who were guilty and/or responsible are gone and I, for one, would never punish the son for the sins of the father.

                There is no need nor desire to forgive the son ... but that does not mean that we are going to forget and the son better know that we are not going to forget.

                "...who were guilty and/or responsible are gone and I, for one, would never punish the son for the sins of the father."

                IF the son knows the sin of his father very well but I'm afraid not the case of Japanese today.

                Comment


                • lf you are a person ,come ,otherwise don't enter this post - FreeWebspace.net Community

                  According this thread, a Chinese claimed atomic bombs are just a "present" to the Japanese (and under murdered by the Western far left hypocrite piece of shite...)

                  Comment


                  • Atom Bombs

                    I don't know how many of you posters were in the military and assigned to the Pacific Theatre of war around middle 1945.
                    I was abaord a ship anchored in Buckner Bay, Naha, Okinawa when the war declared over 15 August 1945.
                    I and every man in the Pacific area was very happy the Atom bombs were dropped and the Japanese finally capitulated and the war was over. Otherwise we knew the next invasion was to be the Japanese homeland.
                    We were strafed by a kamikaze plane the day before as the pilot tried to take out a capital ship before he died - He didn't make it as he was splashed shortly after passing over our ship.
                    Anyone that says President Harry Truman shouldn't have authorized the Air Corps to drop the bombs, wasn't in harms way.
                    Hamp
                    USS LCI (L) & (G) 450
                    WW ll Gator Navy

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by vaughn View Post
                      I don't know how many of you posters were in the military and assigned to the Pacific Theatre of war around middle 1945.
                      I was abaord a ship anchored in Buckner Bay, Naha, Okinawa when the war declared over 15 August 1945.
                      I and every man in the Pacific area was very happy the Atom bombs were dropped and the Japanese finally capitulated and the war was over. Otherwise we knew the next invasion was to be the Japanese homeland.
                      We were strafed by a kamikaze plane the day before as the pilot tried to take out a capital ship before he died - He didn't make it as he was splashed shortly after passing over our ship.
                      Anyone that says President Harry Truman shouldn't have authorized the Air Corps to drop the bombs, wasn't in harms way.
                      My grandpa (still around) was on LST 576 in the Pacific theater. Thankfully he did not have to take part in the invasion... otherwise I may not be around.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bluesman View Post
                        Pretty decent snark you got there, but of course we know you'd never support anything that would be effective, just the usual soft-mouthed protests and diplomatic kibuki dance that would telegraph weakness to our enemies and friends, and end up with even more outrages being conducted against our country.
                        What exactly do you base your assumptions about how I think on?

                        Sure, I'm a centrist. I'm downright liberal in some regards and downright conservative in others.

                        I'm not a softy on foreign policy.

                        My objections to the war in Iraq were that I would have preferred that we use the forces we invaded Iraq with to rampage across Afghanistan and Pakistan until Bin Ladin surrendered or the Pakistani's captured him for us to purchase their own ransom.

                        I will admit that I have always opposed the war in Iraq, but not for the typical reasons that left wingers always use. I believe that we could have used Saddam to our benefit. His penchant for brutality could have been our ally against Iran.

                        I also firmly believe that Saddam was a type of personality with which we could have bargained (I think he was more like Stalin than Hitler...and yes, Stalin was a brutal POS, but we were able to keep him in check). The man was a gangster, and although gangsters tend to be brutal and unsavory, they can be dealt with and manipulated. The guys in charge of Iran, however, can't be dealt with as easily as one deals with a gangster, however.

                        Keep in mind that you can always manipulate a gangster with money, but you can't do the same with a religious fanatic.
                        Last edited by durtyburd; 09 Apr 07,, 01:54.

                        Comment


                        • Here is some food for thought.

                          Only two nuclear weapons have ever been used against people. Now, once the very first Nuke was built, it was only a matter of time that one would have been used in war.

                          Better that two were dropped against Japan, because those weapons are peanuts compared to the Nuclear weapons of the future. We saw the devastation and carnage that Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused. Now imagine, if those weapons were not used, and the world had still not seen the true devastation that these weapons can cause. And instead, nuclear weapons were used during the height of the Cold War.

                          The world would be toast right now.

                          Yes, the Japanese were used as Guinea pigs...but is that so bad? If it saved the world from nuclear annihilation?

                          Comment


                          • Nuclear combat 1945

                            Nuclear Combat - August 1945
                            President Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945 and Harry Truman assumed the Presidency and inherited the responsibility for final nuclear weapon decisions. The first was regarding plans to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. The Target Committee, composed of Groves' deputy, two Army Air Forces officers, and five scientists including one from Great Britain, met in Washington in mid-April 1945. Their initial intention was to select cities that had not previously been heavily damaged by the Twentieth Air Force's conventional-weapon bombing campaign, but such pristine targets had become scarce. Finally they tentatively chose 17 cities, in a list that included Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

                            For several years there had been dissent among scientists and political leaders over the morality and necessity of using atomic bombs against Japan. There was no ignoring, however, the fanaticism of Japanese soldiers, demonstrated at Tinian, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and other Pacific islands. An invasion of Japan would be extremely difficult and would inevitably result in the loss of thousands of American lives, as well as Japanese, civilians as well as military.

                            By August 1945, U.S. Navy submarines and aerial mining by the Army Air Forces (AAF) severely restricted Japanese shipping. The AAF controlled the skies over Japan and the AAF's B-29 bombing attacks crippled its war industry. A plan for the invasion of Japan had been drawn up; Operation Olympic was scheduled for November 1945. Estimates of Allied casualties ranged from 250,000 to a million with much greater losses to the Japanese. To repel invaders, Japan had a veteran army of some two million ready, an army that had already shown its ferocity and fanaticism in combat. Some 8,000 military aircraft were available that could be used for devastating Kamikaze (suicide) attacks on U.S. ships. The draft had been extended to include men from age 15 to 60 and women from 17 to 45, adding millions of civilians ready to defend their homeland to the death, with sharpened sticks if necessary.

                            Experience throughout the Pacific war had shown that Japanese combat casualties had run from five to 20 times those suffered by the Allies, particularly in the battles of the Philippines and Okinawa. Whatever the predicted Allied losses, the potential Japanese military and civilian casualties would have been staggering. Whether Japan would have surrendered prior to invasion without the use of the atomic bombs is a question that can never be answered. Using the history and projections available to him, President Truman made the grave decision to use the atomic bomb in an effort to end the war quickly, thus avoiding a costly invasion.

                            The directive releasing the atomic bomb for use was sent to General Carl Spaatz, commander of the Strategic Air Force in the Pacific. The directive had been approved by Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, and presumably by President Truman. It listed the targets to be attacked and included Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among others; and it referred to the possible use of more than one bomb. Hiroshima was an industrial area with a number of military installations. Nagasaki was a major port with shipbuilding and marine repair facilities. In general, the participants in the decision to use multiple bombs considered that such employment would enhance the psychological effect on the Japanese government and would be conducive to ending the war without the need for an invasion, a paramount objective.

                            The world entered a new era when on August 6, 1945 the crew of the B-29 Enola Gay released an atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The yield was 12.5 KT.

                            The devastation caused by the bomb brought no response to the demand for unconditional surrender, and conventional bombing raids continued.

                            On August 9th, with Sweeney at the controls, B-29 Bockscar took off before dawn from the island of Tinian with a second atomic bomb aboard (only two bombs were available). The primary target was the city of Kokura, but clouds obscured it. With fuel running low due to a fuel transfer problem, Sweeney proceeded to the secondary target, Nagasaki, a leading industrial center. The yield was 22 KT.

                            Even after the second atomic bomb attack, disagreement raged within the Japanese government between peace advocates and those who urged continued resistance. Shortly after the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan’s Emperor Hirohito was convinced that further resistance was futile and took an unprecedented step in modern Japanese history by intervening to bring about the surrender of his nation to save the lives of his people from additional attacks and the bloody land invasion that was sure to come.

                            Some attribute Japan’s final demise to the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Others maintain the fire bomb raids, continued naval blockade, and entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan would have had the same effect within a few weeks—forcing Japan’s leaders to recognize their nation’s grim fate. President Truman had authorized use of the atomic bombs in an attempt to shock the Japanese and avoid Allied troop casualties [one million or more, by one estimate] that would result from invading Japan.

                            An attempted coup by militant extremists failed and on 14 August 1945 Japan surrendered unconditionally. In a break with tradition, Emperor Hirohito announced the surrender in a recorded radio message. Japan accepted the terms of the July 26th Potsdam Declaration calling for unconditional surrender, terms which the Japanese had rejected previously. This was the first time the Japanese people had ever heard their emperor's voice, and some Japanese officers committed suicide upon hearing his decision.

                            On August 28th, U.S. aircraft began landing the first occupation forces at Tokyo. B-29s now were flying relief missions, dropping food, medicine, and other supplies to U.S. Allied prisoners at some 150 Japanese prisoner of war (POW) camps.

                            Most [though far from all] Americans generally felt no moral dilemma over the dropping of the atomic bombs. The surrender ended more than a decade of Japanese aggression in Asia and the Pacific. After three and one-half years of brutal warfare following Pearl Harbor, Americans anxiously awaited the homecoming of surviving service personnel and a return to peacetime normalcy. To an American POW working in a coal mine near Nagasaki when the atomic bomb detonated, the bomb meant survival. He weighed only 98 pounds after 40 months of captivity.

                            After almost four years of war, resulting in the loss of three million Japanese lives and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan signed an instrument of surrender on the USS Missouri in Tokyo Harbor on 02 September 1945. As a result of World War II, Japan lost all of its overseas possessions and retained only the home islands. Manchukuo was dissolved, and Manchuria was returned to China; Japan renounced all claims to Formosa; Korea was granted independence; the USSR occupied southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles; and the United States became the sole administering authority of the Ryukyu, Bonin, and Volcano Islands.
                            Hamp
                            USS LCI (L) & (G) 450
                            WW ll Gator Navy

                            Comment


                            • I tend to disagree that the only choices were invade or drop the bomb. I believe that a total blockade would probably have resulted in eventual capitulation or, alternately, descent into total chaos and anarchy. However, I would still say that the bomb was by far the most humanitarian option. Frontal assault/starve 'em/flatten two cities? I choose flatten two cities. Fewer deaths, less carnage, much fewer American deaths, and it avoids the total destruction of Japan's economy.
                              I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                              Comment


                              • armchairgeneral,

                                the invasion was already planned, decided upon, scheduled, and troops were already moving into location. it was pretty clear that it was gonna be bomb or invasion.
                                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X