I guess my thoughts are that at the end of the day, I'm ok with being in the minority who believes that no one should be dropping WMD's on civilian populations.
Not in Australia.
Not in America.
Not in Syria.
Not in Afghanistan.
Not anywhere.
The unsupported claim of one man pales in comparison to the actions of thousands of people.
If I give you other sources for the quote.....would it even matter? LOL
Posting the unsupported claims of one guy multiple times doesn't add any credibility to those unsupported claims.
I didn't think it would matter. The evidence is there though for those that want to see it
You simply can't accept the basic historical fact that Japan was not looking to surrender until after we utilized the bombs.
The historians though accept that their conclusions are made in hindsight. They don't try to rewrite history to make it seem like Truman knew all this stuff during the war when he was making the decisions.Its actually pretty accepted by a LOT of historians
We certainly deny your mischaracterizations of the quotes.Well if you can provide the same level of references I can I would love to see it. No one really denies these quotes. They are well established. Even those who disagree with me on this thread agree the quotes are true
So how did a squad of Japanese fighters manage to chase the plane with the second A-bomb away from its primary target?Not in august of 1945
I've been showing proper context to you for years.Then take one of the quotes and put it in the proper context. That is debate. I would be happy to see it
Stalin was planning to capture Hokkaido. You'd better go tell him that he doesn't understand his own military capabilities.Russia did not even have a fleet capable of invading Japan
Make sure you let Stalin know that when you explain to him that he doesn't know his own military capabilities.They had no chance of transporting enough troops to japan for an invasion
Wrong. Japan was continuing to refuse to surrender, therefore it was lawful for us to continue to attack them.But the bombs were unnecessary and a war crime
Japan did not ask to surrender with that one concession until after both A-bombs had already been dropped. For that matter, Japan did not offer to surrender in any form whatsoever until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.No starving needed. We could have given them the one concession they wanted and which we did give them anyway in the end.
The war was only over when Japan surrendered. And they only offered to surrender after both A-bombs had already been dropped.The war was over
Sure thing.Anytime you have any evidence of ANYTHING just let us know
As long as Japan refused to surrender it was necessary for us to continue to attack them.The bombs were completely unnecessary
The laws of war say otherwise. We are allowed to attack enemy military targets when we go to war.and were war crimes
I defy you to point out a single error in anything I've said.Me too. Its inaccurate though
Wrong. Japan only offered to surrender with that concession after both A-bombs had already been dropped.Its what Japan wanted. And we gave it to them anyway.
Except for the fact that Japan was not willing to do so until after both A-bombs had already been dropped.We could have just done that upfront and not used the bomb
Our first communication from Japan about surrendering with this concession (and in fact our first communication from Japan about surrender in any form) came only after both A-bombs had already been dropped.It was. I have posted evidence of that on this thread already. They communicated that A LOT. The emperor was willing to do anything to end the war if he got that one concession.....which he did get
Hiroshima was an attack on enemy troops. There were tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers in Hiroshima. And also a vital military headquarters.
The second A-bomb was an attack on Japanese war industry.
People can argue that it was an attack on civilians, but not with any credibility. The fire bombing was an attempt to destroy war industry.
One person proposed dropping an A-bomb over a forest, where trees all felled in a pattern radiating out from a single point would make the power of the bomb obvious.
The committee in charge of picking A-bomb targets considered setting off the bomb over Tokyo Bay where the shock would blow out windows all around the bay and everyone in the area would have a view of the mushroom cloud.
I'm sure everyone here agrees with that.I guess my thoughts are that at the end of the day, I'm ok with being in the minority who believes that no one should be dropping WMD's on civilian populations.
Not in Australia.
Not in America.
Not in Syria.
Not in Afghanistan.
Not anywhere.
20,000 soldiers were killed at Hiroshima.So how many army members were killed and how many civilians were killed?
We received no peace gestures from Japan through the Soviets.I clearly posted evidence of the emperors peace gestures that he made thru the soviets. He wanted one solitary concession and he got it
Japan made a surrender offer only after both A-bombs had already been dropped.O they wanted peace and sued for it by asking for just one concession which they got
When we refuse to give a concession under any circumstance, that means the concession is denied.And yet we granted it to them.
They sued for peace only after both A-bombs had already been dropped.They sued for peace and the evidence has been presented
Here is what the evidence says:That's because the evidence says otherwise
Not in august of 1945
You can throw these emotional arguments around all you want, what you have is called a story, what I have stated are facts.
If a foreign government nuked Seattle I would fully expect our government to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against a similar size city of theirs. If we were in a major war and the other actor had been targeting our civilians for years I would not morally oppose using a nuclear weapon on them. War is war. If you want to try making moral equivalence arguments with 9/11 then OK, still doesn't change the circumstances in which we dropped the atomic bomb on Japan.
U.S. Military Commander in Chief Pacific-Indian Oceans Theater Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr.
Admiral Harry B. Harris Jr. is welcomed by Japan Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the official residence, Tokyo, July 13, 2014. Harry B. Harris, Jr., was born in Yokosuka, Japan in 1956. His father was a U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer who married a Japanese woman.[4] After his family's return to the United States, Harris grew up in Tennessee and Florida, where he attended local public schools.[5] Harris graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1978.
Harry B. Harris Jr | Military Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia.
Admiral Harris and I are each on the record as 'yes'. Separately but together.
20,000 soldiers were killed at Hiroshima.
Credible estimates for the total death toll at Hiroshima (including the soldiers) range from 90,000 to 140,000.
Subtracting the soldiers we get between 70,000 and 120,000 civilians killed.
Then we should drop nuclear weapons on day one of every war
And as anyone who's ever lived near a military installation knows, there's always a civilian population that builds around the post. If the US wanted to strictly bomb military installations and cause less civilian deaths they had the ability to do so with non-nuclear weaponry.
It's fallacious to assume what wouldn't have happened if we didn't drop the nukes. Would Japan have fought until they were down to women and children? Maybe. Would they have surrendered after every military installation was bombed and razed by non-nuclear weaponry? Also possible. What is mind boggling to me how we have convinced ourselves that US was better served killing innocent people was the better alternative to just more bombs. It's apparent the Japanese had no way to oppose the US aerial superiority, so why not continue to fight and destroy them from the safety of the sky while causing far less civilian casualties than weapons of mass destruction.
Those "Americans" that would have died were servicemen who understood the risks of their profession entailed to them. As cold as it sounds, they either opted in, or got drafted to do a job that may kill them. The citizens of Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, the Imperial Army did that.
Then it must really upset you that we didn't nuke Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. We were at war, therefore they all deserved to die. Keep living with your sociopathic tendencies.
It's also important to note that our best buds Japan are also calling for the elimination of ALL nuclear weapons. You know, because their only purpose is killing as many civilians as possible, which is a war crime and an unspeakable atrocity.
Japan Calls For Denuclearized World On 72nd Anniversary Of Hiroshima
We had two bombs. Why ever take the chance? Some would drop nuclear weapons now on Afghanistan and Syria. Would you?
Depends. If the goal is to kill soldiers it would be the reverse.Thank you for those figures. So overwhelmingly the deaths at Hiroshima were civilian and military casualties were somewhat secondary.
That is my understanding as well.I toured the Truman Presidential Museum in Independence, MO two weeks ago and much of it is devoted to the decision to drop the bombs. I came away with the nagging impression that war fatigue was setting in among our people - even the military to some extent - and when Germany fell there was a feeling that we needed to get this last part of the war over and get it done quickly.
So he's a sociopath because of words that you put in his mouth???Then it must really upset you that we didn't nuke Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice and Afghanistan once. We were at war, therefore they all deserved to die. Keep living with your sociopathic tendencies.
Nonsense.their only purpose is killing as many civilians as possible,
Good thing that's not their purpose then.which is a war crime and an unspeakable atrocity.
Depends. If the goal is to kill soldiers it would be the reverse.
That is my understanding as well.
So he's a sociopath because of words that you put in his mouth???
Nonsense.
Good thing that's not their purpose then.
That's because the evidence says otherwise
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?