Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Thank God for the Atom Bomb"

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    I don't doubt it. I'm just pointing to the Japanese own accounts to state that even by their own evidence, they have nothing to complain about.
    As far as i am concerned they (JaPanese) can complain if they want too, serious self introspection has never been a trait found in large amounts among the Japanese. What sickens me is the apologists and haters who think becuase we breached the nuclear threshold we some how committed an unspeakable horror.

    They don't bother to consider Japan's WMD use, it's genocide and war crimes or the brutal effects of blockade and fire bombing, let alone the probable deaths if we invaded Japan.

    They don't get that there was zero chance of peace until Japan threw in the towel, and tha tthe A-bombs saved lives.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Asim Aquil View Post
      If thats the case you should have surrendered!

      You nuked people to save lives, sure.
      Certainly the Japanese leaders in 1945 didn't think so, moron.

      Comment


      • #78
        Here is the transcript of Hirohito's address to his people. Gives the reason of surrender:

        Despite the best that has been done by everyone—the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State, and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people—the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest.

        Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

        Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

        The hardships and sufferings to which Our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, Our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is unsufferable."


        The atom bomb had an impact. Those Japanese apologist always fail to note the fact that the bomb gave Japan a FACE SAVING way to admit that it cannot defeat the allies.

        Comment


        • #79
          One of Japan's most senior politicians has said the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945 was impermissible from a humanitarian point of view.
          Shoichi Nakagawa, the policy chief of the governing party, said that the use of atomic weapons was a crime.

          Mr Nakagawa has attracted controversy recently, calling for a debate on whether Japan should have nuclear arms. He raised the possibility that North Koreans might try to attack Japan with their own nuclear weapons.

          Speaking in Nagasaki over the weekend, Mr Nakagawa - a right-winger - said that atomic bombings were a crime. The American decision to drop the atomic bomb was truly impermissible on humanitarian grounds, he said.

          He repeated the comments on Monday, telling Reuters news agency: "By dropping two atomic bombs, many people, including ordinary citizens, were killed... I believe that such an act can be called a crime."

          After the nuclear attacks in 1945, the Japanese wartime government condemned the bombings as crimes against international law.

          But later on the authorities gave up any idea of pursuing the issue of criminality.

          Today the phrase the government more often uses to describe the attack is "regrettable".

          Mr Nakagawa appears to be going further, saying they were impermissible on humanitarian grounds.

          Analysts say that Mr Nakagawa might have made the comments to simply acknowledge the understandable concern there might be in Nagasaki about his calls for a debate about nuclear weapons, and that this was an attempt to allay those fears with a strong condemnation of the use of the atomic bomb.

          "Nakagawa must have said what he said in Nagasaki with a desire to 'nuance' his repeated statements that there was nothing wrong for Japan to have a debate on itself going nuclear - and make it more acceptable," said Koichi Nakano from Sophia University.

          At the same time, though, he points out that Mr Nakagawa's reference to a war crime by the Americans that was never really persecuted is a favourite theme of right-wingers in Japan.

          The politician's comments were probably intended simply for a local audience and were not thought likely to be picked up elsewhere.

          Mr Nakagawa also used his speech to warn of the threat posed by North Korea.

          "There exists a country that appears likely to use them if it does not like something," he said.

          "Japan should do its utmost to ensure that no weapon of mass destruction can be used ever again."

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6189489.stm
          The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
          Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
          - The Eagles

          Comment


          • #80
            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?


            Comment


            • #81
              My philosophy:

              You started an agreesive campaign and killed our sailors/marines/Army and civilians on Dec.7th 1941 at Pearl without any declaration of War.

              We ended your aggresive campaign in 1945 in a matter moments.

              Case closed.

              Go cry about death,destruction and murder to families that had to endure the days,months and years after Pearl.
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #82
                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?
                Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, 1945, Nagasaki on August 9. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time in that window of opportunity, and avoided the second bomb. They chose not to. Oh, well.
                The more I think about it, ol' Billy was right.
                Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight.
                - The Eagles

                Comment


                • #83
                  Why the big Hoo-Haa about using an Atomic bomb?
                  At that time and place it was simply another piece of ordinance.
                  Block Busters and fire bombings were becoming the norm, the goal was to kill as many of the enemy; and destroy as much of their infrastructure, as possible.
                  Total war was the name of the game; the Axis initiated it, and reaped the consequences.
                  When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    percentage plyr,

                    the reason why the japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb was because some of the militarists believed that this was an one-shot deal, that the US just had one of these monster bombs.

                    it took another bomb, and in a sufficiently short time after the first, for them to believe that maybe the US had more than a few up its sleeve, and could annihilate japan without losing anything.
                    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


                    • #85
                      Japanese militants didn't even want to surrender after the 2nd bomb. It took forces loyal to Hirohito to subdue the militants.

                      Hirohito wanted to surrender after the first bomb but the issue was debated. We gave them an ultimatum even before the bombing. They had plenty of chance to throw in the towel. They took too long.
                      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                        Japanese militants didn't even want to surrender after the 2nd bomb. It took forces loyal to Hirohito to subdue the militants.

                        Hirohito wanted to surrender after the first bomb but the issue was debated. We gave them an ultimatum even before the bombing. They had plenty of chance to throw in the towel. They took too long.
                        Correct.

                        Anybody that condemns the bombings simply does not know his nhistory, and that includes Japanese politicians.

                        No regrets. NONE.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Major Dad View Post
                          One of Japan's most senior politicians has said the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki in 1945 was impermissible from a humanitarian point of view.
                          Shoichi Nakagawa, the policy chief of the governing party, said that the use of atomic weapons was a crime.

                          Mr Nakagawa has attracted controversy recently, calling for a debate on whether Japan should have nuclear arms. He raised the possibility that North Koreans might try to attack Japan with their own nuclear weapons.

                          Speaking in Nagasaki over the weekend, Mr Nakagawa - a right-winger - said that atomic bombings were a crime. The American decision to drop the atomic bomb was truly impermissible on humanitarian grounds, he said.

                          He repeated the comments on Monday, telling Reuters news agency: "By dropping two atomic bombs, many people, including ordinary citizens, were killed... I believe that such an act can be called a crime."

                          After the nuclear attacks in 1945, the Japanese wartime government condemned the bombings as crimes against international law.

                          But later on the authorities gave up any idea of pursuing the issue of criminality.

                          Today the phrase the government more often uses to describe the attack is "regrettable".

                          Mr Nakagawa appears to be going further, saying they were impermissible on humanitarian grounds.

                          Analysts say that Mr Nakagawa might have made the comments to simply acknowledge the understandable concern there might be in Nagasaki about his calls for a debate about nuclear weapons, and that this was an attempt to allay those fears with a strong condemnation of the use of the atomic bomb.

                          "Nakagawa must have said what he said in Nagasaki with a desire to 'nuance' his repeated statements that there was nothing wrong for Japan to have a debate on itself going nuclear - and make it more acceptable," said Koichi Nakano from Sophia University.

                          At the same time, though, he points out that Mr Nakagawa's reference to a war crime by the Americans that was never really persecuted is a favourite theme of right-wingers in Japan.

                          The politician's comments were probably intended simply for a local audience and were not thought likely to be picked up elsewhere.

                          Mr Nakagawa also used his speech to warn of the threat posed by North Korea.

                          "There exists a country that appears likely to use them if it does not like something," he said.

                          "Japan should do its utmost to ensure that no weapon of mass destruction can be used ever again."

                          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6189489.stm

                          Unfortunately, MR Nakagawa has never heard of a Chinese city called Nanjing. Let's not discuss the number of civilians MURDERED there in the name of Japan.

                          What happened there in NO WAY would have ended the conflict between China and Japan. Until MR Nakagawa cares to comment on the Rape of Nanjing, he should be treated like the moronic statements he has made.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Mr. Nakagawa like many right-wing Japanese finds it easier to accuse others of War Crimes, while ignoring Japans own skeletons in that closet.
                            Their atrocities in China, the Baatan Death March, their treatment of Allied POW’s, hereunder biological and chemical experimentation on said same. These and other crimes are conveniently forgotten in that they’ll always have the spectre of those two mushroom cloud sprouting over two Japanese cities to harp about.
                            That these two bombs saved countless of lives; both Allied and Japanese, that a conventional attack on the Home Islands would have claimed, is also conveniently forgotten,
                            When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow. - Anais Nin

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              re

                              What I don't understand here (and I'm quite ignorant about the US-Japanese side of the war in WWII, so don't jump at me), is that if a land invasion of Germany was possible, the why not Japan? What was there to compel the US to drop a nuke instead of just a full scale land invasion together with the Russians and other allies? From what I understand, the japanese navy was decimated, so there should not have been any problem getting on the island, right?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by gamercube View Post
                                What I don't understand here (and I'm quite ignorant about the US-Japanese side of the war in WWII, so don't jump at me), is that if a land invasion of Germany was possible, the why not Japan? What was there to compel the US to drop a nuke instead of just a full scale land invasion together with the Russians and other allies? From what I understand, the japanese navy was decimated, so there should not have been any problem getting on the island, right?
                                Land invasion was possible. Given enough time, we would have fought our way to Tokyo. In fact the plan was all set and ready to go. Look up "Operation Downfall."

                                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

                                The estimated casualty for the Allies (mainly American) was at 1 million. The estimated casualty for Japan was at 5 million. These numbers were extrapolated from the Japanese de-fense of the various islands in the Pacific, Phillipines, Iwo Jima, and especially Okinawa. The Allied high command had no knowledge of the extent of Japanese willingness to use mass suicide attacks against the landing ships. Japan had an estimated 5000 planes ready for kamikaze attacks.

                                The American troops were a bit tired of fighting by 1945. Those from the European theater just wanted to go home. They felt they had done their job. And they had indeed. The Pacific, they felt, was not on the top of the list of things they wanted to do.

                                The troops in the Pacific, seeing that Europe is done, also wanted to finish up the Japanese and go home. A landing followed by a land war on Japan would take at least another year to 18 months, tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands injured. Not counting millions of dead Japanese from warfare, starvation, and disease.

                                The 2 atomic weapons saved millions of lives and shortened the war by 1 year at least. The were the most humane weapons ever devised.


                                That's funny, de-fense is a censored word?
                                Last edited by gunnut; 21 Dec 06,, 01:38.
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X