Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

[Montecresto]

You made the claim... back it up. Where was all the disagreement by those in the know.

Really, we, you and I, have been through this before. You want it all again?

 

[Bodi]

Yes, I've been making it for some time now. There is never a justification for dropping a nuclear bomb on a city, ever. Would you accept the Islamic State who we are at war with, dropping a nuclear bomb on Philadelphia, not to pick on that city?

I don't accept any bombing of any civilian population acceptable... dead is dead though.

 

[Montecresto]

Let me state for the first time. Of course we can... and we did. Twice.

The point was, with any legitimacy. Japan targeted a military installation in Pearl Harbor.

 

[Bodi]

Really, we, you and I, have been through this before. You want it all again?

Not really... I am just bored and about to sign off and wanted to have you do a bunch of work researching.

 

[Montecresto]

I don't accept any bombing of any civilian population acceptable... dead is dead though.

You accepted the US targeting civilians in H&N!!!!

 

[Montecresto]

Not really... I am just bored and about to sign off and wanted to have you do a bunch of work researching.

I wasn't going to, as I said, you and I hashed this out a year ago.

 

[Bodi]

The point was, with any legitimacy. Japan targeted a military installation in Pearl Harbor.

Fair enough. I would argue targeting German cities was probably fair since I can make the educated argument that "they started it".

Japan was a different ball of wax though... they raped Nanking and committed atrocities though against civilian populations.

 

[Bodi]

I wasn't going to, as I said, you and I hashed this out a year ago.

I won that one, as I remember... took a photo screen shot and put it up on my wall of victory right next to my V.J. (victory over Japan) poster.

 

[Moon]

Lol. The people that were incinerated were not fighting, justify killing someone's child and they may justify killing yours.

It's called war. Don't like the consequences? Then don't start one.

 

[Bodi]

You accepted the US targeting civilians in H&N!!!!

After I figure out what H&N is I can debate that point but what I mean by "Accept" has different context depending on the point. I don't "accept" bombing civilians as a valid course of war but once that crap starts, like Germany did, then I accept that it is a part of war. Differentiation.

 

[Bodi]

It's called war. Don't like the consequences? Then don't start one.

And the blame for ALL of those civilian deaths is squarely on the hands of the German and Japanese leadership... not the Americans.

 

[jet57]

Again with what I said: Nope, we did the right thing at the time.

I don't quite get that. But anyway, I'm intrigued: what did we do that was wrong in the sense that you are thinking? I'd like for you to elaborate.

 

[Montecresto]

Fair enough. I would argue targeting German cities was probably fair since I can make the educated argument that "they started it".

Japan was a different ball of wax though... they raped Nanking and committed atrocities though against civilian populations.

The government of Japan was in no way clean. But are you arguing that Japanese children deserved being vaporized for what the government of Japan was doing elsewhere?

 

[Montecresto]

I don't quite get that. But anyway, I'm intrigued: what did we do that was wrong in the sense that you are thinking? I'd like for you to elaborate.

He did all through the thread.

 

[Montecresto]

It's called war. Don't like the consequences? Then don't start one.

I'd like to have made that appeal to FDR, but wasn't available at the time.

 

[Montecresto]

After I figure out what H&N is I can debate that point but what I mean by "Accept" has different context depending on the point. I don't "accept" bombing civilians as a valid course of war but once that crap starts, like Germany did, then I accept that it is a part of war. Differentiation.

The two cities that we dropped nuclear bombs on that finds so much support here. The topic of the op.

 

[Montecresto]

And the blame for ALL of those civilian deaths is squarely on the hands of the German and Japanese leadership... not the Americans.

Which is what the Islamic state is arguing right now to any Muslims that may be taking issue with their killing of civilians.

 

[jet57]

He did all through the thread.

He's done nothing of the kind. So let's see what he has to say...

 

[Moon]

I'd like to have made that appeal to FDR, but wasn't available at the time.

FDR started a war? I don't think he was flying one of the Japanese planes that attacked Pearl Harbor.

 

[Montecresto]

FDR started a war? I don't think he was flying one of the Japanese planes that attacked Pearl Harbor.

You're apparently unaware of FDR's provocations to draw out a Japanese attack in order to secure the support of the American citizens otherwise OVERWHELMINGLY against it.

 

[Montecresto]

He's done nothing of the kind. So let's see what he has to say...

:shrug: I'm sorry, I've seen his explanations all through the thread.

 

[Chagos]

I don't really see how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were any more terrible on civilians than the "conventional" raids on Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Kobe, and Kawasaki, not to mention other smaller cities in Japan. Estimates of the total of Japanese casualties range between at least 240,000 and go up to 900,000.

Coventry, London, Hamburg, Dresden, Shanghai, Nanking etc., what's the diff.?

Either declare them all (war) crimes against humanity or concede military necessity. There's little point in weighing scales being applied here (ours vs. theirs) or deeming one occurrence to be less bad than another.

Anyone think Air Marshall Harris was particularly concerned with civilian collaterals in German? On the contrary, he specifically targeted them in his morale bombing campaign. The objective incidentally failing.

Of the 500,000 civilian lives lost to Allied bombing, the lion's share perished from end 1944 to May 1945, a time by which Germany had conceivably had its pencil broken, its defeat being only a matter of time. Had little boy and fat boy been around in the middle of 1944, that period of the most intense bloodletting could probably have been avoided by using both to crush the last resolve.

Aerial bombing of cities comprising primarily civilians is not pretty and nobody ever said it was. But whether one dies in the flaming inferno caused by conventional incendiaries or by a nuclear blast of that time really makes no difference to those that perish.

Hiro and Naga taught a valuable lesson. Never to do it again especially when the others can do the same to you.

That, apart from the bickering about whose opinion is right on what strategies went thru the minds of planners then, is the most salient point.

To distinguish between good bombings and bad bombings is the most hypocritical aspect of the whole thread.

 

[PoS]

Read more @: Hiroshima marks 70 years since atomic bomb

People are still suffering from the first a-bomb. Humanity can not and must not forget to what happened. I will always hold that the US dropping the A-bomb(s) was never justifiable.

The bomb was justified because Japan had no intention of surrendering and were prepared to fight on till every last man woman and child were dead. In the end the bomb saved more American and Japanese lives than it ended. In fact more people died from the firebombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima.

 

[Montecresto]

I don't really see how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were any more terrible on civilians than the "conventional" raids on Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohama, Kobe, and Kawasaki, not to mention other smaller cities in Japan. Estimates of the total of Japanese casualties range between at least 240,000 and go up to 900,000.

Coventry, London, Hamburg, Dresden, Shanghai, Nanking etc., what's the diff.?

Either declare them all (war) crimes against humanity or concede military necessity. There's little point in weighing scales being applied here (ours vs. theirs) or deeming one occurrence to be less bad than another.

Anyone think Air Marshall Harris was particularly concerned with civilian collaterals in German? On the contrary, he specifically targeted them in his morale bombing campaign. The objective incidentally failing.

Of the 500,000 civilian lives lost to Allied bombing, the lion's share perished from end 1944 to May 1945, a time by which Germany had conceivably had its pencil broken, its defeat being only a matter of time. Had little boy and fat boy been around in the middle of 1944, that period of the most intense bloodletting could probably have been avoided by using both to crush the last resolve.

Aerial bombing of cities comprising primarily civilians is not pretty and nobody ever said it was. But whether one dies in the flaming inferno caused by conventional incendiaries or by a nuclear blast of that time really makes no difference to those that perish.

Hiro and Naga taught a valuable lesson. Never to do it again especially when the others can do the same to you.

That, apart from the bickering about whose opinion is right on what strategies went thru the minds of planners then, is the most salient point.

To distinguish between good bombings and bad bombings is the most hypocritical aspect of the whole thread.

There most certainly was other war crimes committed.

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal....

General Curtis LeMay

 

[Chagos]

There most certainly was other war crimes committed.

Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal....

General Curtis LeMay

Is this supposed to be some response to my post? No? Then why did you quote me?