ViperPilot 0 #51 April 7, 2006 QuoteWhen you inavde Iran, what if Iran uses them against America to "stop anymore deaths on their part" like you said about why it was ok to drop TWO nuclear bombs on Japan ? The problem with Iran is not this scenario, but the fact that their president has already blatenly said he's going to send nukes to Israel as soon as he can. He has not basis for doing this except that he hates Israel and the Jews. The guys a cook, obviously it's in our interest to prevent him from having nukes. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #52 April 7, 2006 QuoteYou and the Discovery channel should brush up on your facts a bit. We did not have the capability to drop an atomic bomb for the entire duration of the war. Your assertion that it was unnecessary to drop the bomb is ludicrous. The US slowly but surely captured island after island in the south pacific with extremely heavy losses. The estimated losses for invading the main islands of Japan were staggering. The atomic bomb offered an alternative solution - one that worked. I have often considered if The Bomb was truly the only alternative to invasion. It was certainly the biggest bang for the buck! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #53 April 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Discovery channel had the 60th anniversary last August and they stated that we intentionally didn't drop on Hiroshima for the entire war because we wanted to see the damage to an unmollested city after we dropped the A-bomb. We didn't want to end the war earlier, we wanted to use the war as a scientific test and we denounced Dr. Mengele. You actually saw this, or did you indirectly read this from some partisan source of questionable accuracy? I saw and heard this during the 60th anniversary special over the weekend last August. I've done papers on WWII and never before read this. It does seem plausable - probably true. I would like to do more research on this. Of the 30 or so books I have read about WWII, I do not recall ever reading this either. But I do remember reading how it was an attractive city early in the planning stages for it's industry and geographic location. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #54 April 7, 2006 QuoteAs I said - brush up on your history a bit and get back with us. Well, post that it is false..... I just related what I personally heard and saw. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #55 April 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Discovery channel had the 60th anniversary last August and they stated that we intentionally didn't drop on Hiroshima for the entire war because we wanted to see the damage to an unmollested city after we dropped the A-bomb. We didn't want to end the war earlier, we wanted to use the war as a scientific test and we denounced Dr. Mengele. You actually saw this, or did you indirectly read this from some partisan source of questionable accuracy? I saw and heard this during the 60th anniversary special over the weekend last August. I've done papers on WWII and never before read this. It does seem plausable - probably true. I would like to do more research on this. Of the 30 or so books I have read about WWII, I do not recall ever reading this either. But I do remember reading how it was an attractive city early in the planning stages for it's industry and geographic location. It really stuck in my mind when I heard it. I've been to Tinian, the place where both bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man were loaded and armed - actually I think Fat Man was armed by teh crew as it flew, but the acft tookoff from Tinian - I visited Saipan, an island we took back from the Japanese as they jumped to their death to avoid being taken. A lot of WWII history there. I want to research that assertion from Discovery Channel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #56 April 7, 2006 Here's a bunch of quotes from military people, Einstein, etc... http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm DWIGHT EISENHOWER "...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." ALBERT EINSTEIN Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it. In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first. Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view: "Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1. Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted: "As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'". And a bunch of others........ What I extrapolated was that we had a race to end the war and not let Russia share in the glory. We dropped teh bomb early before Russia had a chance to get into the action over thee, as they would have been credited for ending the war. Many good theories and statements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #57 April 7, 2006 http://www.facts.com/amhist/haa00001010.htm#h03 Critics Say Bombings Were Immoral, Unnecessary Critics of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings say that it is barbaric and a crime against humanity to target civilians with such a devastating weapon. They note that 95% of the people who were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were civilians. According to Japanese estimates in the wake of the bombing, some 75% of those immediately killed died as a result of burns, either from "flash burns" caused by the heat of the blast or from burns from fires sparked by the blast. Many more died later from effects of the radiation, including radiation sickness (also called acute radiation syndrome) and cancer. SO if virtually all were civilians, what was teh neccessity? _________________________________________________________ http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2278/ When George W. Bush declared war on Iraq to destroy Saddam’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, he was following the great American tradition of the Big Lie. Sixty years ago, when President Harry Truman announced to the American public that the first atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, he told a whopper, describing the city as “a military base” targeted “because we wished… to avoid…the killing of civilians.” Yet Hiroshima was not a military base; the Bomb had been deliberately dropped without warning on the city center, instantly leveling it and incinerating as many as 75,000 men, women and children. Another 125,000 died more slowly, many of them rotting inside-out from radiation poisoning. Truman also claimed that the Bomb was our one way to compel Japanese surrender and that its use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved half a million American lives. Yet as Gerard DeGroot observes in The Bomb, his caustic compendium of the history of nuclear weaponry, weeks earlier the United States had intercepted Japanese peace feelers to the Soviets. Japan was probably prepared to surrender on conditional terms-but the United States would accept only unconditional surrender. The real target of the Bomb was the USSR. At Yalta, the Soviets had agreed to invade Japan in exchange for concessions in Asia-and the Russians were due to invade by August 15. The U.S. rush to nuke Japan allowed America to renege on that agreement. Analyzing the impact of the Bomb less than a year later, the United States’ own Strategic Bombing Survey challenged the claim that the Bomb ended the war, asserting “certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #58 April 7, 2006 "I do believe we wanted to see what kind of casualty damage it would create."___________________________________________I totally agree. Just as we used Gulf War I to test all our new toys (and line the pockets of certain defense contractors) and the current (undeclared) Gulf War 2 for the same reason. To bad our boys are taking the shit end of the stickI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #59 April 7, 2006 Quote"I do believe we wanted to see what kind of casualty damage it would create."___________________________________________I totally agree. Just as we used Gulf War I to test all our new toys (and line the pockets of certain defense contractors) and the current (undeclared) Gulf War 2 for the same reason. To bad our boys are taking the shit end of the stick Yep. I think the trend of the country is to come away from the greasy Republican military industrial war machine. New polls show that not only voters are disgusted with the pres, but Congress even more. Ultimately tho, the guys in uniform, for which I was one years back, take it in the drawers for corp profits and this concept of industrial military supremacy. I used to think the dropping of the bombs was so essential, but now I think it was merely: A) An experiment B) A way to upstage the Ruskies and be WWII heroes. I think things will change in the upcomming years..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #60 April 7, 2006 Tell that to ViperPilot. LOL He and all the flyboys need to get their glory soon cause they are all gonna be replaced by drones soon. LOLI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #61 April 7, 2006 Quote What I extrapolated was that we had a race to end the war and not let Russia share in the glory. We dropped teh bomb early before Russia had a chance to get into the action over thee, as they would have been credited for ending the war. This is the most supportable of the various claims made. As for Japan being open to a conditional surrender- fuck em. There was nothing conditional about their war making. This isn't a valid bitch. The bombs saved both American and Japanese lives. And both miltary and civilians. People who have this fantasy notion that death by nuclear fission is a specially horrible method, but aren't very grounded in the real world. We've done this discussion before. Did the citizens of Hiroshima get it any worse than those in Toyko? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites cloudseeker2001 0 #62 April 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis seems to be an overly ambitions reaction to my knowledge of a historic observation, but who am I to question your motivations! You're just the innocent recipient of the absurd response to more absurdity. Don't worry. QuoteMay we video your exploding head? Only those showing their official "conspiracy nutjob" passes will be able to view the explosion. I'm going for candy shooting out of my head... like a pinata... you know, just to make it culturally correct. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites DaVinci 0 #63 April 11, 2006 Quote'm pretty sure America used the bombs on Japan because they feared horrendous loss of life on both sides if they had to have mounted a full invasion of mainland Japan. So to save human life they used 2 nuclear bombs to "convince" Japan to surrender. Yes. It is a shame, but it was one of the few options left. I find it interesting that people get upset about the two atomic weapons, however they don't seem to get upset at the fact that just prior to the dropping of the atomic weapons the US fire bombed Tokyo killing more people with "conventional" weapons over about a week than with the two atomic ones. The weapons were so shocking that even when conventional weapons did not work those two did. Correction, the threat of the US having a bunch of them did. QuoteWhen you invade iran (as you surely will, it's just a matter of time) will Iran be justified in Bombing the fuck out of Mainland America with their nuclear weapons to "save lifes" just like you did with Japan? If Iran had the choice of a mainland attack in which every redneck with a gun would fight to the death, VS an atomic attack....Yes. But that would not be the case. Would you be OK if Iran just conventionally bombed the fuck out of middle America? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #64 April 11, 2006 QuoteDo you trust yourself with a gun? Do you trust a third grader with one? They are the third grade kid. +10.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ChasingBlueSky 0 #65 April 11, 2006 QuoteDo you trust yourself with a gun? Do you trust a third grader with one? They are the third grade kid. I'm thinking they feel the reverse is quite true. Who has used one in an act of aggression? What country has invaded two countries in recent history? Didn't we already play this game of chicken? Didn't we learn our lesson last time. I suggest the entire Bush admin go watch the 80s movie "War Games" in case they need a reminder._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #66 April 12, 2006 Because it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites racer42 0 #67 April 12, 2006 QuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. I think we should be careful to seperate the current government of Iran and the people of Iran. I sincerely doubt the people of Iran and the Mullahs that run the country share the same ideals.L.A.S.T. #24 Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team Electric Toaster #3 Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor Co-Founder Team Happy Sock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites livendive 8 #68 April 12, 2006 QuoteLet's see now...I am having to deal with a potential threat to my safety who carries a big stick, and I would like to have a big stick to protect myself... Hmmmm...should I not pick up a big stick because the big guy making the threats doesn't want me to? Edited to present an alternate perspective. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SkyDekker 1,465 #69 April 12, 2006 QuoteBoth crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Obviously you haven't seen the video of the DEA agent. Or read the news about the two cops in NYC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites JohnRich 4 #70 April 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteBoth crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Obviously you haven't seen the video of the DEA agent. Or read the news about the two cops in NYC. The crooks & cops was an analogy about the possesion of nukes by Iran and the U.S. Obviously you've forgotten that origin and are now off on another topic. Unless you're saying that the U.S. was criminal to use two nukes to end WWII (and save millions of lives, both U.S. and Japanese, that would have otherwise been lost in an invasion of the home islands). Is that what you are claiming? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Andy9o8 2 #71 April 12, 2006 QuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. Yeah, that in a nutshell is pretty much the way I feel, too. Is the US having & keeping nukes, while insisting that nobody else who doesn't already have them not obtain them, a bit "unfair"? Well, technically, maybe it is, but you know what? -- I don't care, because life isn't fair. And the simple fact is, I trust the US and (more or less) Russia and China not to go off half-cocked with their nukes, but I don't trust the likes of Iran, etc. not to. And if they don't like the inequity of that, well, tough shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #72 April 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. I think we should be careful to seperate the current government of Iran and the people of Iran. I sincerely doubt the people of Iran and the Mullahs that run the country share the same ideals. Perhaps, but the people don't have control over the nuclear program, or the potential use of developed weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites racer42 0 #73 April 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. I think we should be careful to seperate the current government of Iran and the people of Iran. I sincerely doubt the people of Iran and the Mullahs that run the country share the same ideals. Perhaps, but the people don't have control over the nuclear program, or the potential use of developed weapons. Agreed. Now what?L.A.S.T. #24 Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team Electric Toaster #3 Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor Co-Founder Team Happy Sock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kelpdiver 2 #74 April 13, 2006 well, you either believe that Iranian leaders merely wish to make themselves invasion proof and worry not so much about their threats against Israel, or you do everything and anything you can to stop them. And if your goal is more about maintaining the imbalance of power, you do the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites narcimund 0 #75 April 13, 2006 QuoteThe U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. The last 14 US military adventures were offensive, not defensive. I suppose we should be thankful the nukes have stayed inert... so far. I'm not confident about the near future. Is anyone? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 3 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
cloudseeker2001 0 #53 April 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Discovery channel had the 60th anniversary last August and they stated that we intentionally didn't drop on Hiroshima for the entire war because we wanted to see the damage to an unmollested city after we dropped the A-bomb. We didn't want to end the war earlier, we wanted to use the war as a scientific test and we denounced Dr. Mengele. You actually saw this, or did you indirectly read this from some partisan source of questionable accuracy? I saw and heard this during the 60th anniversary special over the weekend last August. I've done papers on WWII and never before read this. It does seem plausable - probably true. I would like to do more research on this. Of the 30 or so books I have read about WWII, I do not recall ever reading this either. But I do remember reading how it was an attractive city early in the planning stages for it's industry and geographic location. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #54 April 7, 2006 QuoteAs I said - brush up on your history a bit and get back with us. Well, post that it is false..... I just related what I personally heard and saw. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #55 April 7, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Discovery channel had the 60th anniversary last August and they stated that we intentionally didn't drop on Hiroshima for the entire war because we wanted to see the damage to an unmollested city after we dropped the A-bomb. We didn't want to end the war earlier, we wanted to use the war as a scientific test and we denounced Dr. Mengele. You actually saw this, or did you indirectly read this from some partisan source of questionable accuracy? I saw and heard this during the 60th anniversary special over the weekend last August. I've done papers on WWII and never before read this. It does seem plausable - probably true. I would like to do more research on this. Of the 30 or so books I have read about WWII, I do not recall ever reading this either. But I do remember reading how it was an attractive city early in the planning stages for it's industry and geographic location. It really stuck in my mind when I heard it. I've been to Tinian, the place where both bombs, Little Boy and Fat Man were loaded and armed - actually I think Fat Man was armed by teh crew as it flew, but the acft tookoff from Tinian - I visited Saipan, an island we took back from the Japanese as they jumped to their death to avoid being taken. A lot of WWII history there. I want to research that assertion from Discovery Channel. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #56 April 7, 2006 Here's a bunch of quotes from military people, Einstein, etc... http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm DWIGHT EISENHOWER "...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. "During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." ALBERT EINSTEIN Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it. In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first. Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view: "Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1. Regarding the 1939 letter to Roosevelt, his biographer, Ronald Clark, has noted: "As far as his own life was concerned, one thing seemed quite clear. 'I made one great mistake in my life,' he said to Linus Pauling, who spent an hour with him on the morning of November 11, 1954, '...when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them.'". And a bunch of others........ What I extrapolated was that we had a race to end the war and not let Russia share in the glory. We dropped teh bomb early before Russia had a chance to get into the action over thee, as they would have been credited for ending the war. Many good theories and statements. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #57 April 7, 2006 http://www.facts.com/amhist/haa00001010.htm#h03 Critics Say Bombings Were Immoral, Unnecessary Critics of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings say that it is barbaric and a crime against humanity to target civilians with such a devastating weapon. They note that 95% of the people who were killed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were civilians. According to Japanese estimates in the wake of the bombing, some 75% of those immediately killed died as a result of burns, either from "flash burns" caused by the heat of the blast or from burns from fires sparked by the blast. Many more died later from effects of the radiation, including radiation sickness (also called acute radiation syndrome) and cancer. SO if virtually all were civilians, what was teh neccessity? _________________________________________________________ http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2278/ When George W. Bush declared war on Iraq to destroy Saddam’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, he was following the great American tradition of the Big Lie. Sixty years ago, when President Harry Truman announced to the American public that the first atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima, he told a whopper, describing the city as “a military base” targeted “because we wished… to avoid…the killing of civilians.” Yet Hiroshima was not a military base; the Bomb had been deliberately dropped without warning on the city center, instantly leveling it and incinerating as many as 75,000 men, women and children. Another 125,000 died more slowly, many of them rotting inside-out from radiation poisoning. Truman also claimed that the Bomb was our one way to compel Japanese surrender and that its use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved half a million American lives. Yet as Gerard DeGroot observes in The Bomb, his caustic compendium of the history of nuclear weaponry, weeks earlier the United States had intercepted Japanese peace feelers to the Soviets. Japan was probably prepared to surrender on conditional terms-but the United States would accept only unconditional surrender. The real target of the Bomb was the USSR. At Yalta, the Soviets had agreed to invade Japan in exchange for concessions in Asia-and the Russians were due to invade by August 15. The U.S. rush to nuke Japan allowed America to renege on that agreement. Analyzing the impact of the Bomb less than a year later, the United States’ own Strategic Bombing Survey challenged the claim that the Bomb ended the war, asserting “certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered.” Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #58 April 7, 2006 "I do believe we wanted to see what kind of casualty damage it would create."___________________________________________I totally agree. Just as we used Gulf War I to test all our new toys (and line the pockets of certain defense contractors) and the current (undeclared) Gulf War 2 for the same reason. To bad our boys are taking the shit end of the stickI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #59 April 7, 2006 Quote"I do believe we wanted to see what kind of casualty damage it would create."___________________________________________I totally agree. Just as we used Gulf War I to test all our new toys (and line the pockets of certain defense contractors) and the current (undeclared) Gulf War 2 for the same reason. To bad our boys are taking the shit end of the stick Yep. I think the trend of the country is to come away from the greasy Republican military industrial war machine. New polls show that not only voters are disgusted with the pres, but Congress even more. Ultimately tho, the guys in uniform, for which I was one years back, take it in the drawers for corp profits and this concept of industrial military supremacy. I used to think the dropping of the bombs was so essential, but now I think it was merely: A) An experiment B) A way to upstage the Ruskies and be WWII heroes. I think things will change in the upcomming years..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #60 April 7, 2006 Tell that to ViperPilot. LOL He and all the flyboys need to get their glory soon cause they are all gonna be replaced by drones soon. LOLI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #61 April 7, 2006 Quote What I extrapolated was that we had a race to end the war and not let Russia share in the glory. We dropped teh bomb early before Russia had a chance to get into the action over thee, as they would have been credited for ending the war. This is the most supportable of the various claims made. As for Japan being open to a conditional surrender- fuck em. There was nothing conditional about their war making. This isn't a valid bitch. The bombs saved both American and Japanese lives. And both miltary and civilians. People who have this fantasy notion that death by nuclear fission is a specially horrible method, but aren't very grounded in the real world. We've done this discussion before. Did the citizens of Hiroshima get it any worse than those in Toyko? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #62 April 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteThis seems to be an overly ambitions reaction to my knowledge of a historic observation, but who am I to question your motivations! You're just the innocent recipient of the absurd response to more absurdity. Don't worry. QuoteMay we video your exploding head? Only those showing their official "conspiracy nutjob" passes will be able to view the explosion. I'm going for candy shooting out of my head... like a pinata... you know, just to make it culturally correct. "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #63 April 11, 2006 Quote'm pretty sure America used the bombs on Japan because they feared horrendous loss of life on both sides if they had to have mounted a full invasion of mainland Japan. So to save human life they used 2 nuclear bombs to "convince" Japan to surrender. Yes. It is a shame, but it was one of the few options left. I find it interesting that people get upset about the two atomic weapons, however they don't seem to get upset at the fact that just prior to the dropping of the atomic weapons the US fire bombed Tokyo killing more people with "conventional" weapons over about a week than with the two atomic ones. The weapons were so shocking that even when conventional weapons did not work those two did. Correction, the threat of the US having a bunch of them did. QuoteWhen you invade iran (as you surely will, it's just a matter of time) will Iran be justified in Bombing the fuck out of Mainland America with their nuclear weapons to "save lifes" just like you did with Japan? If Iran had the choice of a mainland attack in which every redneck with a gun would fight to the death, VS an atomic attack....Yes. But that would not be the case. Would you be OK if Iran just conventionally bombed the fuck out of middle America? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #64 April 11, 2006 QuoteDo you trust yourself with a gun? Do you trust a third grader with one? They are the third grade kid. +10.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #65 April 11, 2006 QuoteDo you trust yourself with a gun? Do you trust a third grader with one? They are the third grade kid. I'm thinking they feel the reverse is quite true. Who has used one in an act of aggression? What country has invaded two countries in recent history? Didn't we already play this game of chicken? Didn't we learn our lesson last time. I suggest the entire Bush admin go watch the 80s movie "War Games" in case they need a reminder._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #66 April 12, 2006 Because it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racer42 0 #67 April 12, 2006 QuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. I think we should be careful to seperate the current government of Iran and the people of Iran. I sincerely doubt the people of Iran and the Mullahs that run the country share the same ideals.L.A.S.T. #24 Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team Electric Toaster #3 Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor Co-Founder Team Happy Sock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #68 April 12, 2006 QuoteLet's see now...I am having to deal with a potential threat to my safety who carries a big stick, and I would like to have a big stick to protect myself... Hmmmm...should I not pick up a big stick because the big guy making the threats doesn't want me to? Edited to present an alternate perspective. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #69 April 12, 2006 QuoteBoth crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Obviously you haven't seen the video of the DEA agent. Or read the news about the two cops in NYC. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #70 April 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteBoth crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Obviously you haven't seen the video of the DEA agent. Or read the news about the two cops in NYC. The crooks & cops was an analogy about the possesion of nukes by Iran and the U.S. Obviously you've forgotten that origin and are now off on another topic. Unless you're saying that the U.S. was criminal to use two nukes to end WWII (and save millions of lives, both U.S. and Japanese, that would have otherwise been lost in an invasion of the home islands). Is that what you are claiming? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #71 April 12, 2006 QuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. Yeah, that in a nutshell is pretty much the way I feel, too. Is the US having & keeping nukes, while insisting that nobody else who doesn't already have them not obtain them, a bit "unfair"? Well, technically, maybe it is, but you know what? -- I don't care, because life isn't fair. And the simple fact is, I trust the US and (more or less) Russia and China not to go off half-cocked with their nukes, but I don't trust the likes of Iran, etc. not to. And if they don't like the inequity of that, well, tough shit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 April 12, 2006 QuoteQuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. I think we should be careful to seperate the current government of Iran and the people of Iran. I sincerely doubt the people of Iran and the Mullahs that run the country share the same ideals. Perhaps, but the people don't have control over the nuclear program, or the potential use of developed weapons. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
racer42 0 #73 April 13, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause it's not just about having them, it's about what you intend to do with them. Both crooks and cops have guns, but we're only worried about the crooks. That's because the crooks do bad things with them, while the cops do good things with them. Iran has vowed to destroy Israel, and that makes them like the crook. The U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. I think we should be careful to seperate the current government of Iran and the people of Iran. I sincerely doubt the people of Iran and the Mullahs that run the country share the same ideals. Perhaps, but the people don't have control over the nuclear program, or the potential use of developed weapons. Agreed. Now what?L.A.S.T. #24 Co-Founder Biscuit Brothers Freefly Team Electric Toaster #3 Co-Founder Team Non Sequitor Co-Founder Team Happy Sock Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #74 April 13, 2006 well, you either believe that Iranian leaders merely wish to make themselves invasion proof and worry not so much about their threats against Israel, or you do everything and anything you can to stop them. And if your goal is more about maintaining the imbalance of power, you do the same. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
narcimund 0 #75 April 13, 2006 QuoteThe U.S. has it's nukes for defensive usage only, like the cops. The last 14 US military adventures were offensive, not defensive. I suppose we should be thankful the nukes have stayed inert... so far. I'm not confident about the near future. Is anyone? First Class Citizen Twice Over Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
