Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 79 years ago (1 Viewer)

[Toggle Almendro]

Both military targets.

Both bombed during the war while Japan was still refusing to respond to our surrender demands.

Both deterred Kennedy and Khrushchev from launching nukes in 1962.

 

[Sabre]

Hiroshima-today

 

[Sabre]

Nagasaki-today

 

[Nickyjo]

Both military targets.

Both bombed during the war while Japan was still refusing to respond to our surrender demands.

Both deterred Kennedy and Khrushchev from launching nukes in 1962.

Two of the most successful acts of terrorism in history.

 

[dmpi]

Japanese samurai philosophy calls to never surrender and to die by your own sword if necessary. Ironic but this is exactly what happened.

 

[devildavid]

The only time atomic bombs were ever used. The beginning of the nuclear era, in which humanity started working toward the ability to wipe itself from the face of the earth. Something to take very soberly and seriously. Not a cause for any rah rah military victory celebration. One thing that it may have done is to prevent another world war. But nothing is guaranteed. The genie is out of the bottle.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Two of the most successful acts of terrorism in history.

So, you would have preferred an Allied land invasion ala D-Day at Normandy, with the accompanying 100,000 allied deaths. We were going to win the war. That was certain. The only question was how many American and allied deaths would it take.

Japan attacked the U.S. and the consequence to Japan was devastation and destruction. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Japan ****ed around and found out.

No apologies here.

 

[devildavid]

Japanese samurai philosophy calls to never surrender and to die by your own sword if necessary. Ironic but this is exactly what happened.

They didn’t die by their own sword so this is a myth about the Japanese. They surrendered.

 

[Parrish]

My mom went to Hiroshima with a church group on the 50th anniversary. She met survivors and affirmed non-nuclear conflagration.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

It is probably, no.....DEFINITELY the only time nukes will ever have been used and a peaceful and orderly recovery engaged soon after.
Plenty of people in both nations regret it having come to using nukes but once the genie was out of the bottle nobody wanted to be the next nation, or the next US presidential administration over here, to use them again.
And I am comfortable in saying that outlook appears to have stuck, until Putin began making open threats a year or so back.
I daresay there will never ever EVER be another instance of ANY nation using nuclear weapons in a war where there is a peaceful and orderly recovery and a return to any semblance of normalcy.
The next nation that is first to use nukes in a war will never recover, not in our lifetimes or in any lifetime four or five generations hence.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Two of the most successful acts of terrorism in history.

It was that kind of war.

 

[devildavid]

It was that kind of war.

Every war is that kind of war.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Every war is that kind of war.

No, we haven't been in a total war since then. Even the Korean conflict had some restraint.

 

[devildavid]

No, we haven't been in a total war since then. Even the Korean conflict had some restraint.

There is terrorism in every war. There is no such thing as a restrained war. Even small scale wars.

 

[Hamish Howl]

There is terrorism in every war. There is no such thing as a restrained war. Even small scale wars.

So we dropped nukes on Pyongyang?

Or China?

 

[Nickyjo]

So, you would have preferred an Allied land invasion ala D-Day at Normandy, with the accompanying 100,000 allied deaths. We were going to win the war. That was certain. The only question was how many American and allied deaths would it take.

Japan attacked the U.S. and the consequence to Japan was devastation and destruction. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Japan ****ed around and found out.

No apologies here.

The US went to war with Japan over imperial desires of both countries regarding SE Asia. Japan was ready to surrender, we demanded unconditional surrender, and killed tens of thousands of innocents to effect a political purpose, the definition of terrorism. Nagasaki was the bigger sin, not giving the Japanese time to figure out what had happened just a few days before.

Resurrect the worst tyrants in history, or the worst Inquisitors, and tell them that a largely Christian nation would justify killing not ten civilians, not ten thousand, but tens of thousands to make a political point. They wouldn’t believe you.

 

[devildavid]

So we dropped nukes on Pyongyang?

Or China?

At that point using nukes was out of the question since Russia had them. Doesn’t mean that the conventional bombing of Pyongyang wasn’t a form of terrorism.

Nukes are not the only form of terror. The fire bombing of Dresden was terrorism. The conventional bombing of Japan was a form of terrorism. It wasn’t just nukes that made for terrorism in WWII. Every war has its moments of mass destruction and killing that resemble terrorism. It doesn’t have to be nukes.

 

[Nickyjo]

That is incorrect. Terrorists target civilians. The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

All of the dead were soldiers? The bombs were dropped to affect a political purpose, unconditional surrender, much as Osama attacked the World Trade Center to effect a political purpose, getting the U.S. to withdraw forces from Saudi Arabia. Both acts of terrorism produced the desired results.

 

[Hamish Howl]

At that point using nukes was out of the question since Russia had them. Doesn’t mean that the conventional bombing of Pyongyang wasn’t a form of terrorism.

Nukes are not the only form of terror. The fire bombing of Dresden was terrorism. The conventional bombing of Japan was a form of terrorism. It wasn’t just nukes that made for terrorism in WWII. Every war has its moments of mass destruction and killing that resemble terrorism. It doesn’t have to be nukes.

Russia wasn't a belligerent, and Russia didn't have a reliable way to strike anything but parts of the US West Coast.

And referring to war as terrorism? It cheapens the term.

 

[Integrityrespec]

It is probably, no.....DEFINITELY the only time nukes will ever have been used and a peaceful and orderly recovery engaged soon after.
Plenty of people in both nations regret it having come to using nukes but once the genie was out of the bottle nobody wanted to be the next nation, or the next US presidential administration over here, to use them again.
And I am comfortable in saying that outlook appears to have stuck, until Putin began making open threats a year or so back.
I daresay there will never ever EVER be another instance of ANY nation using nuclear weapons in a war where there is a peaceful and orderly recovery and a return to any semblance of normalcy.
The next nation that is first to use nukes in a war will never recover, not in our lifetimes or in any lifetime four or five generations hence.

Having nukes now makes you able to not use them. Without nukes there is no deterrent from the bad guys pulling the trigger first. Smart folks realize using them is not a good option for anyone, it's the radical nut jobs like Iran that are a danger with a nuke.

 

[Hamish Howl]

All of the dead were soldiers? The bombs were dropped to affect a political purpose, unconditional surrender, much as Osama attacked the World Trade Center to effect a political purpose, getting the U.S. to withdraw forces from Saudi Arabia. Both acts of terrorism produced the desired results.

To what political purpose was the destruction of Nanjing?

The Japanese decided on total war, not only not having all the facts, but ignoring the facts they did have. As well as the input of their best military minds.

This is what happens when you believe your own hype. Your cities get ****ed. Worth noting, the firebombing of Tokyo 100,000 immediate deaths without using nukes.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

it's the radical nut jobs like Iran that are a danger with a nuke.

Or Russia.
Putin has openly threatened to use a nuclear first strike option "if they lose in Ukraine"....VERBATIM.

 

[Hamish Howl]

They didn’t die by their own sword so this is a myth about the Japanese. They surrendered.

After the firebombing and after the nukes, and after Russia jumped in.

The alternative was invading, which would have killed 400,000 to 800,00 allied troops and 5-10 million Japanese.

The bombs were a bargain.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Or Russia.
Putin has openly threatened to use a nuclear first strike option "if they lose in Ukraine"....VERBATIM.

He's been making these threads so often that I don't believe him.

I mean, it would also mean his own personal death, as well as the death of his nation. Probably not the species, as would have happened in the 80s or 90s, but civilization would not continue.

 

[Toggle Almendro]

Two of the most successful acts of terrorism in history.

That is incorrect. Terrorists target civilians. The atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

The US went to war with Japan over imperial desires of both countries regarding SE Asia.

That is incorrect. The US went to war with Japan because of their devastating attack on Pearl Harbor.

Japan was ready to surrender,

That is incorrect. When the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan was still refusing to discuss surrender with us.

we demanded unconditional surrender,

That is incorrect. The US backed away from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which was a list of generous surrender terms.

and killed tens of thousands of innocents to effect a political purpose, the definition of terrorism.

That is incorrect. There are several facets to the definition of terrorism. The most significant facet is that it involves the deliberate targeting of civilians, which is something that the US did not do.

Nagasaki was the bigger sin, not giving the Japanese time to figure out what had happened just a few days before.

That is incorrect. Japan had enough information to process the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and surrender within 24 hours. And they had three days between bombings.

Further, there is no requirement that we give them time to surrender between each attack. We had every right to drop the two atomic bombs an hour apart, or even simultaneously.

Resurrect the worst tyrants in history, or the worst Inquisitors, and tell them that a largely Christian nation would justify killing not ten civilians, not ten thousand, but tens of thousands to make a political point. They wouldn’t believe you.

They would be right to not believe it, as it isn't true. We did not target civilians.

All of the dead were soldiers?

No. But they were the targets.

The bombs were dropped to affect a political purpose, unconditional surrender,

That is incorrect. The US backed away from unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which was a list of generous surrender terms.

much as Osama attacked the World Trade Center to effect a political purpose, getting the U.S. to withdraw forces from Saudi Arabia.

Usama bin Ladn deliberately massacred civilians and committed a crime against humanity. That is quite different from wartime strikes against military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both acts of terrorism produced the desired results.

That is incorrect. Wartime strikes against military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not terrorism. Terrorism requires, among other things, the deliberate targeting of civilians.