juanesky 0
Recommended Posts
philh 0
Curtis Lemay: if you go on the Strategic Air Command's web site you will see them describing LeMay as the father of SAC. The quote are attributed during a BBC documentary which have been also fetaured in their history magazine. If you read properly you would see that I would only have dropped the bomb if the peace negotations had gotten nowhere and had the power of the bomb been demonstrated before using it on civilains. Neiher of these were done. In the link provided by rickjump you will see th Japanese war cabinet was split 50/50 over whether to accept the Potsdam ultimatum. You will also see how keen the Emperor was to order a surrender. Therefore it is not an uneducated guess to presume that peace negotiqations could have got some where. But they were never attempted.
Walter Brown who was the asssistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes was quoted as saying Truman agreed that the Japs were "looking for peace" and that Macarthur and Eisonhower agreed there was no military need for the usse of the bomb.
Furthermore many scientists who worked on the project quote rightly wanted the power demonstrated before being used. Here is the document from the NAtional archives:
Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, folder #76.
Leo Szilard sent copies of the July 3 version of his petition to the Manhattan Project laboratory at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. After discussion and debate, the Oak Ridge scientists produced two similar petitions.
The undated petition reproduced below called for the atomic bomb to be "adequately described and demonstrated" before use. This petition received 67 signatures, which are listed here in alphabetical order.
An article by petition signer Howard Gest, The July 1945 Szilard Petition on the Atomic Bomb: Memoir by a signer in Oak Ridge, is available online at http://www.bio.indiana.edu/Gest/
To the President of the United States:
We, the undersigned scientific personnel of the Clinton Laboratories, believe that the world-wide social and political consequences of the power of the weapon now being developed on this Project impose a special moral obligation on the government and people of the United States in introducing the weapon in warfare.
It is further believed that the power of this weapon should be made known by demonstration to the peoples of the world, irrespective of the course of the present conflict, for in this way the body of world opinion may be made the determining factor in the absolute preservation of peace.
Therefore we recommend that before this weapon be used without restriction in the present conflict, its powers should be adequately described and demonstrated, and the Japanese nation should be given the opportunity to consider the consequences of further refusal to surrender. We feel that this course of action will heighten the effectiveness of the weapon in this war and will be of tremendous effect in the prevention of future wars.
------
Laslty the reaosn it was considered mitlatiraly unnecassry to drop the bomb was becuase Japan had been devestated and peace was seen as achievable through negotiation. So the comparison with Okinawa is utterly irrelevant. As I have said many times and you still ignore. Given the choice between invading Japan and using the bomb, yes the bomb had its merits. But this was not the only choice. Shall I say it again: THIS WAS NOT THE ONLY CHOICE. The other choice, which many sceintists working on the project favoured would have been to demonsrate the power of the bomb and then initaite peace negotations. This was not done and that is why the decision was wrong. Let me also add that Truman addressed the nation in a speech on Aug 9th 1945 he said "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. " Now either Truman was misinformed as to the nature of the target or he was out and out lying; either way it reinforces the immorality of dropping the bomb on a civilan target. Here is Truman himself effecivley condenming what actually happened. What more proof do you need?
Walter Brown who was the asssistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes was quoted as saying Truman agreed that the Japs were "looking for peace" and that Macarthur and Eisonhower agreed there was no military need for the usse of the bomb.
Furthermore many scientists who worked on the project quote rightly wanted the power demonstrated before being used. Here is the document from the NAtional archives:
Source: U.S. National Archives, Record Group 77, Records of the Chief of Engineers, Manhattan Engineer District, Harrison-Bundy File, folder #76.
Leo Szilard sent copies of the July 3 version of his petition to the Manhattan Project laboratory at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. After discussion and debate, the Oak Ridge scientists produced two similar petitions.
The undated petition reproduced below called for the atomic bomb to be "adequately described and demonstrated" before use. This petition received 67 signatures, which are listed here in alphabetical order.
An article by petition signer Howard Gest, The July 1945 Szilard Petition on the Atomic Bomb: Memoir by a signer in Oak Ridge, is available online at http://www.bio.indiana.edu/Gest/
To the President of the United States:
We, the undersigned scientific personnel of the Clinton Laboratories, believe that the world-wide social and political consequences of the power of the weapon now being developed on this Project impose a special moral obligation on the government and people of the United States in introducing the weapon in warfare.
It is further believed that the power of this weapon should be made known by demonstration to the peoples of the world, irrespective of the course of the present conflict, for in this way the body of world opinion may be made the determining factor in the absolute preservation of peace.
Therefore we recommend that before this weapon be used without restriction in the present conflict, its powers should be adequately described and demonstrated, and the Japanese nation should be given the opportunity to consider the consequences of further refusal to surrender. We feel that this course of action will heighten the effectiveness of the weapon in this war and will be of tremendous effect in the prevention of future wars.
------
Laslty the reaosn it was considered mitlatiraly unnecassry to drop the bomb was becuase Japan had been devestated and peace was seen as achievable through negotiation. So the comparison with Okinawa is utterly irrelevant. As I have said many times and you still ignore. Given the choice between invading Japan and using the bomb, yes the bomb had its merits. But this was not the only choice. Shall I say it again: THIS WAS NOT THE ONLY CHOICE. The other choice, which many sceintists working on the project favoured would have been to demonsrate the power of the bomb and then initaite peace negotations. This was not done and that is why the decision was wrong. Let me also add that Truman addressed the nation in a speech on Aug 9th 1945 he said "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. " Now either Truman was misinformed as to the nature of the target or he was out and out lying; either way it reinforces the immorality of dropping the bomb on a civilan target. Here is Truman himself effecivley condenming what actually happened. What more proof do you need?
how would you demonstrate the power of the atom bomb to the Japanese? They weren't *that* destructive, and we only had a few.
philh 0
THere were several options to demonstrate. One would be to proviide films/ test results from the New Mexico test through the Swiss diplomatic channels that were alreay established. Another would have been to drop the bomb on a city but give clear warning for it to be evacuated. Another would have been to explode on a test site and invite the Japanese to witness it. Perhaps none of these would have worked but the fact they were never tried, despite the warnings of the sceintists involved in the project is what is so objectionable.
Whilst the original bombs were not as powerful as todays bombs, they were enough to devastate an entire city so they were certainly powerful. Furthermore whilst the US only had a few, once production was set in motion and the physcial and engineerinng problemms were solved it was not difficult to make more as history has proved.
Whilst the original bombs were not as powerful as todays bombs, they were enough to devastate an entire city so they were certainly powerful. Furthermore whilst the US only had a few, once production was set in motion and the physcial and engineerinng problemms were solved it was not difficult to make more as history has proved.
I don't know who the hell is Genral Curti Lee May, of even if Genral was a rank of the times, but seems like he does not know how long it took the US Marines to take over OKINAWA and IWO JIMA, 2 places considerably with less Japanese population, and for certain with LESS TERRAIN.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites