The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Debate about anything going on in the world. Please remember, everyone has their own opinion.

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:19 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:Can I ask how old you are? Not a hostile question, I am seriously interested in why certain generations view historic events so differently. I grew up in a home which had the leaded windows bowed in from German bombs. There were still ruble filled vacant properties all across South London where homes once stood. This was in the sixties, and the war was just 40 years past.

As for war, having fought in two I can assure you that it is far better for civilians and combatants alike (as a whole obviously) when the decision to take military action is taken to just go in and win. That is what nuking Japan was about. Half assed military operations like Viet Nam and the current conflicts in the desert are far worse in the end. Nobody is flag waving.

BTW, the US and allies including Arab nations are securing the few oil wells in Syria because ISIS was funding themselves through the proceeds. Trump spouts off about keeping the money to pay for cost of defending the rest of the world but that is all talk. The US spends trillions of dollars rebuilding nations of leaders that they defeat. FFS, if not for the US we would be speaking German. Yup I used the cliche...but it was true then and it is true now. :naughty:


39 and as hard nosed as they come.

I just know that the West re-writes history from their perch, if Russia nuked London or Newyork we'd never forgive them for as long as humans live and breath and you know it.

Vietnam was a shocker, but it was armed personel mainly fighting each other, the ones who felt hard done by mainly were the Americans because they actually had to fight a war like everyone else does.

............. the result is the public get a distaste for war, not what they do now where they sit at home and the 10 o'clock News looks like an exciting scene from Top Gun and all you see are fancy jets and at worst a plume of smoke with no thought to who's under that plume.

Just imagine for one moment Russia or China flew Jets into England and bombed Manchester, we'd be going fkin mental and besides ourself ............. for people in Syria that's daily life.

Basically what I'm saying is, its all well and good, even "Win, win" when its not happening to you, a lot of people cant comprehend the difference because they've never had to experience it.

We did in the 1940's and haven't shut up about it since.


What I think you are ignoring is the difference between defending one's nation from aggression and instigating the aggression.

The nukes the US developed came just in time as the Germans were getting close to having the first one. Are you that confident in the morality of the likes of Hitler and Hirohito to suggest that they would not have nuked London had they been able to? Think about it, that would have won the wars they started.

As someone else wisely stated the nuking of Japan demonstrated to everyone just how terrible those weapons are when used. That had a huge effect on how Vietnam was fought. Don't forget that it was South Vietnam fighting invasion by proxy from the USSR and China during the height of the cold war when the communists were trying to do exactly what the Axis was up to. Like I said, everything needs to be viewed through the lense of the times.

The cold war standoff was based on mutually assured destruction, and quite frankly that probably saved millions upon millions of lives rather than fighting ground wars. That said there were enough proxy wars going on that most folks in the west ignored because they were not fought 30 miles from Dover.
He/His/Non-Menstruater/Postmenopausal/non-vaginal male. Yup all man!
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Tue Nov 26, 2019 10:32 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
StLGooner wrote:I wonder how long he contemplated that decision? And if it haunted him at all afterwards?


Your giving these guys in politics far ....... far too much credit.

I've heard the things they say on the phone when they think people aren't listening.

JFK is one of the only Presidents I feel had a conscience ........... hence why they blew his head off.


JFK was the one who went into Vietnam. He was also the one who went head to head with the USSR over nukes in Cuba. He also was a Pacific war combat veteran. I think it is too cynical and revisionist to not view any of his or any past leader's decisions without fully understanding the times and what had influenced the thinking of those leaders.
He/His/Non-Menstruater/Postmenopausal/non-vaginal male. Yup all man!
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby Phil71 » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:03 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
UFGN wrote:Define a soldier when you are fighting a war with conscripts?

These weren't solders in the modern sense, they were office workers, railwaymen, window cleaners. Their lives are of equal value to the people who sadly died

Its also wrong to say that there was no urgency. Japan was busy starving and beating thousands of Westerners to death in internment camps


M.I.L.T.A.R.Y Target!!

America could of Nuked an Army base or Marine dock, Airfield or even a bloody main Gov't building if they wanted to make it more legal or relevant bombing a purely civilian City was just pure spite.


Nuke an army base or marine dock?

With what? Some sort of miniature nuke?
User avatar
Phil71
Herbert Chapman
Herbert Chapman
 
Posts: 10569
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:04 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby EliteKiller » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:12 pm

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:What I think you are ignoring is the difference between defending one's nation from aggression and instigating the aggression.

The nukes the US developed came just in time as the Germans were getting close to having the first one. Are you that confident in the morality of the likes of Hitler and Hirohito to suggest that they would not have nuked London had they been able to? Think about it, that would have won the wars they started.

As someone else wisely stated the nuking of Japan demonstrated to everyone just how terrible those weapons are when used. That had a huge effect on how Vietnam was fought. Don't forget that it was South Vietnam fighting invasion by proxy from the USSR and China during the height of the cold war when the communists were trying to do exactly what the Axis was up to. Like I said, everything needs to be viewed through the lense of the times.

The cold war standoff was based on mutually assured destruction, and quite frankly that probably saved millions upon millions of lives rather than fighting ground wars. That said there were enough proxy wars going on that most folks in the west ignored because they were not fought 30 miles from Dover.


You destroy your own argument .... to show how terrible a weapon is does not require the murder of 500,000 civilians ... the US could have bombed any one of a dozen Japanese islands containing very few civilians and military garrisons to demonstrate the power of a nuclear weapon - and even if you accept the frankly ridiculous premise that a nuclear attack on civilians was required as proof - how do you justify doing it twice?

Remember winners write history - if the Germans/Japanese had won we would be reading about the glorious subjugation of the inferior enemy, not about the horror of internment camps - it's just the same when the US glorifies the mass murder of civilians with nuclear weapons, they won so that makes it OK. Was it?
Last edited by EliteKiller on Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby LMAO » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:25 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:
LMAO wrote:
StLGooner wrote:
Phil71 wrote:The bombs were dropped to end the world war.

It worked.


So can we then make the argument that we actually saved lives overall? :think:


Yes, and that's why the bombs are justifiable. Else, there would've been an invasion of Japan where it's likely millions of lives would've been lost instead. Plus, it ended the war quicker. And now Japan is a close ally of ours. Win-win-win in my book.


Wow.

If they were actually fighting then it would of been more military personel vs military personel, like its supposed to be.

But instead they rubbed out two towns / cities of civilians ............ yeah great. :rolleyes:

People who had fk all to do with the war, as I said earlier they could of had the same effect if they bombed two military outposts or docks etc.

The devastation would of been apparent to the Japanese and they would of quit same way anyway.

Basically America was fuming about Pearl Harbour and went above and beyond to make a point ........... completely an illegal response, however since when does the American Gov't give a fk about International law?

Also consider this, your like "win, win" .............. put your family up for a bombing sacrifice next time and see if you feel the same way.


I thought it was the left who were snowflakes? And I thought you studied history? :think:

Hiroshima - headquarters of Chuugoku Regional Army, Army Marine Headquarters located in the port, military depot, key shipping center
Nagasaki - the home of a major Imperial Japan naval base, Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works also located there

But yes, do go on about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two random cities that didn't play a major role in the Japanese war effort.

You underestimate the Japanese resolve. They would've died for their emperor and the glory of Japan. It would've taken many more deaths—soldiers, men, women, and children—than those who perished from the nukes before the war ended.

And how was it an illegal response? War crimes weren't codified until after WWII. Today it'd be illegal, but back then, it was fair game. You can't just make shit up and apply ex post facto.

And what bombing sacrifice for my family? America dropped leaflets days before warning the citizens of those cities to evacuate if they wanted to live. There was fair warning.

Also, and this question is for everyone who has a problem with Little Boy and Fat Man: What is the difference between dropping two nukes and the massive firebombings of Tokyo? No one ever seems to bring those up or have a problem with it. If it were up to me, I'd rather be taken out near instantaneously by a nuke than burn to death—seems a lot more humane at least. The only difference between the nukes and the bombings of Dresden, London, Munich, Tokyo, etc. is nukes are more in-your-face/more shocking.
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 9978
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby LMAO » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:36 pm

Phil71 wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
UFGN wrote:Define a soldier when you are fighting a war with conscripts?

These weren't solders in the modern sense, they were office workers, railwaymen, window cleaners. Their lives are of equal value to the people who sadly died

Its also wrong to say that there was no urgency. Japan was busy starving and beating thousands of Westerners to death in internment camps


M.I.L.T.A.R.Y Target!!

America could of Nuked an Army base or Marine dock, Airfield or even a bloody main Gov't building if they wanted to make it more legal or relevant bombing a purely civilian City was just pure spite.


Nuke an army base or marine dock?

With what? Some sort of miniature nuke?


:lol:

Don't you know we had the capability to build laser-guided nukes with a small payload in 1945?

EliteKiller wrote:
Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:What I think you are ignoring is the difference between defending one's nation from aggression and instigating the aggression.

The nukes the US developed came just in time as the Germans were getting close to having the first one. Are you that confident in the morality of the likes of Hitler and Hirohito to suggest that they would not have nuked London had they been able to? Think about it, that would have won the wars they started.

As someone else wisely stated the nuking of Japan demonstrated to everyone just how terrible those weapons are when used. That had a huge effect on how Vietnam was fought. Don't forget that it was South Vietnam fighting invasion by proxy from the USSR and China during the height of the cold war when the communists were trying to do exactly what the Axis was up to. Like I said, everything needs to be viewed through the lense of the times.

The cold war standoff was based on mutually assured destruction, and quite frankly that probably saved millions upon millions of lives rather than fighting ground wars. That said there were enough proxy wars going on that most folks in the west ignored because they were not fought 30 miles from Dover.


You destroy your own argument .... to show how terrible a weapon is does not require the murder of 500,000 civilians ... the US could have bombed any one of a dozen Japanese islands containing very few civilians and military garrisons to demonstrate the power of a nuclear weapon - and even if you accept the frankly ridiculous premise that a nuclear attack on civilians was required as proof - how do you justify doing it twice?

Remember winners write history - if the Germans/Japanese had one we would be reading about the glorious subjugation of the inferior enemy, not about the horror of internment camps - it's just the same when the US glorifies the mass murder of civilians with nuclear weapons, they won so that makes it OK. Was it?


What's the point of bombing an uninhabited island? America could've just sent footage of the New Mexico test to Tokyo in that case. If we bombed a random island, the Japanese generals could've very well said, "Okay, but you don't have the balls to actually nuke Honshu, so f**k you, we're going to continue fighting."

It's not okay. But it's justifiable.
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 9978
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:43 pm

EliteKiller wrote:
Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:What I think you are ignoring is the difference between defending one's nation from aggression and instigating the aggression.

The nukes the US developed came just in time as the Germans were getting close to having the first one. Are you that confident in the morality of the likes of Hitler and Hirohito to suggest that they would not have nuked London had they been able to? Think about it, that would have won the wars they started.

As someone else wisely stated the nuking of Japan demonstrated to everyone just how terrible those weapons are when used. That had a huge effect on how Vietnam was fought. Don't forget that it was South Vietnam fighting invasion by proxy from the USSR and China during the height of the cold war when the communists were trying to do exactly what the Axis was up to. Like I said, everything needs to be viewed through the lense of the times.

The cold war standoff was based on mutually assured destruction, and quite frankly that probably saved millions upon millions of lives rather than fighting ground wars. That said there were enough proxy wars going on that most folks in the west ignored because they were not fought 30 miles from Dover.


You destroy your own argument .... to show how terrible a weapon is does not require the murder of 500,000 civilians ... the US could have bombed any one of a dozen Japanese islands containing very few civilians and military garrisons to demonstrate the power of a nuclear weapon - and even if you accept the frankly ridiculous premise that a nuclear attack on civilians was required as proof - how do you justify doing it twice?

Remember winners write history - if the Germans/Japanese had one we would be reading about the glorious subjugation of the inferior enemy, not about the horror of internment camps - it's just the same when the US glorifies the mass murder of civilians with nuclear weapons, they won so that makes it OK. Was it?


No, history is about reality.

You do know that the UK and US had an agreement signed that stipulated that development and use of nukes would be a joint decision? Truman had Churchill's commitment to help invade Japan to end the war if the nukes were not developed in time. That was followed by the Potsdam Declaration in which both countries and our allies warned Hirohito that if he did not surrender Japan would be decimated. This was a warning to Japan, and given they knew that months earlier the US had tested the first nuke it was no surprise to the Japanese leadership. The weeks prior to the Hiroshima the US was using conventional bombs and Dresden style fire bombs on most of Japanese cities while holding ten nukes in reserve. When the first nuke was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese still refused to surrender despite another warning from Truman. The Nagasaki bomb was the event that convinced Hirohito to accept the surrender terms. The celebrations in London rivaled those in NYC. Those are the facts, that is the history. It is not about glorifying anything. One can debate if it was OK or not, but just in light of the facts and the times right?

BTW, the number of casualties was actually closer to 200k than 500k but still awful obviously.
Last edited by Pat Rice in Short Shorts on Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
He/His/Non-Menstruater/Postmenopausal/non-vaginal male. Yup all man!
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby EliteKiller » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:58 pm

LMAO wrote:What's the point of bombing an uninhabited island? America could've just sent footage of the New Mexico test to Tokyo in that case. If we bombed a random island, the Japanese generals could've very well said, "Okay, but you don't have the balls to actually nuke Honshu, so f**k you, we're going to continue fighting."

It's not okay. But it's justifiable.


Hmmm are you taking the piss?

The islands were in the way of an invasion of japan - did you study history at all? The capture of Okinawa, Attu, Iwo Jima and many more had already led to the deaths of 1,000's on both sides ... bombing an occupied Japanese island is not the same as sending a video from New Mexico ... but I guess you were kidding?

Your response is exactly what happened "let's murder 500,000 civilians in case the Japs don't get the message" in fact let's do it twice... today that's the very definition of a war crime. The justifications of course are well known, and no question it was a different time, however that still doesn't make them valid.

Remember 500,000 people would have survived if the Japanese generals had seen an island evaporate and gone "that's it we surrender" that had to be worth a try, didn't it? .... The option for mass civilian murder would still have been available a month later.
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby Pat Rice in Short Shorts » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:05 am

EliteKiller wrote:
LMAO wrote:What's the point of bombing an uninhabited island? America could've just sent footage of the New Mexico test to Tokyo in that case. If we bombed a random island, the Japanese generals could've very well said, "Okay, but you don't have the balls to actually nuke Honshu, so f**k you, we're going to continue fighting."

It's not okay. But it's justifiable.


Hmmm are you taking the piss?

The islands were in the way of an invasion of japan - did you study history at all? The capture of Okinawa, Attu, Iwo Jima and many more had already led to the deaths of 1,000's on both sides ... bombing an occupied Japanese island is not the same as sending a video from New Mexico ... but I guess you were kidding?

Your response is exactly what happened "let's murder 500,000 civilians in case the Japs don't get the message" in fact let's do it twice... today that's the very definition of a war crime. The justifications of course are well known, and no question it was a different time, however that still doesn't make them valid.

Remember 500,000 people would have survived if the Japanese generals had seen an island evaporate and gone "that's it we surrender" that had to be worth a try, didn't it? .... The option for mass civilian murder would still have been available a month later.


Your paradigm is incorrect. As I posted the Japanese received many warnings before each bombing. They knew that they would lose but were trying desperately to improve their negotiating position by trying to sway Stalin to come to their side. He did not. They refused to abide by the Potsdam warnings and the US and UK ended the war.

The term murder is also not applicable.
He/His/Non-Menstruater/Postmenopausal/non-vaginal male. Yup all man!
Pat Rice in Short Shorts
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 2146
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:05 pm
Location: Montana USA by way of Lewisham/Bromley UK

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby EliteKiller » Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:39 am

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:Your paradigm is incorrect. As I posted the Japanese received many warnings before each bombing. They knew that they would lose but were trying desperately to improve their negotiating position by trying to sway Stalin to come to their side. He did not. They refused to abide by the Potsdam warnings and the US and UK ended the war.

The term murder is also not applicable.


WOW - That's just wrong on so many levels ... the Japanese surrendered to the US because they knew the Russians would get to Japan first and that the deceleration of war by Stalin was the key moment not a couple of nuclear bombs. The decision to surrender to the US was purely a pragmatic one, the Japanese knew a good 'peace' could be won from Roosevelt but not from Stalin.

Read this https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ it very simplistically explains why the bombing was almost militarily irrelevant but politically expedient ... 500,000 civilians dead just to make politicians look good, not much has changed.

If not murder then how would you describe the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians? collateral damage?
EliteKiller
Tony Adams
Tony Adams
 
Posts: 5652
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby LMAO » Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:38 am

EliteKiller wrote:
LMAO wrote:What's the point of bombing an uninhabited island? America could've just sent footage of the New Mexico test to Tokyo in that case. If we bombed a random island, the Japanese generals could've very well said, "Okay, but you don't have the balls to actually nuke Honshu, so f**k you, we're going to continue fighting."

It's not okay. But it's justifiable.


Hmmm are you taking the piss?

The islands were in the way of an invasion of japan - did you study history at all? The capture of Okinawa, Attu, Iwo Jima and many more had already led to the deaths of 1,000's on both sides ... bombing an occupied Japanese island is not the same as sending a video from New Mexico ... but I guess you were kidding?

Your response is exactly what happened "let's murder 500,000 civilians in case the Japs don't get the message" in fact let's do it twice... today that's the very definition of a war crime. The justifications of course are well known, and no question it was a different time, however that still doesn't make them valid.

Remember 500,000 people would have survived if the Japanese generals had seen an island evaporate and gone "that's it we surrender" that had to be worth a try, didn't it? .... The option for mass civilian murder would still have been available a month later.


100% serious

And it wasn't 500k. It's estimated 129,000-226,000. Still a lot no doubt but not as embellishing as you're making it.

In your scenario of choosing islands and also acknowledging there were troops from both sides on them, why would we nuke the islands if there were US citizens on them? It doesn't make a lick of sense to kill your own men. That's not going to play well back home.

"Oh but they can just retreat." Yeah, the Japanese military, having shown to be a cordial bunch, would just let that happen.

"No, I was talking about islands with only Japanese military on them." Okay, so we nuke those islands. Remember the Japanese fighting spirit some of us have mentioned? Yeah, the rest of the Japanese military is going to be pissed and want revenge, not surrender, for killing their brothers in arms.

So no, even with your scenario, nuking the islands would've been pointless, and sending the New Mexico video would've accomplished just as much toward to goal of ending the war in a swift manner with the fewest amount of casualties.

And some of the people who died might've survived had Hiroshima and Nagasaki not been glassed. But hundreds of thousands to millions more would've perished with a joint US-Soviet invasion. Unless you're okay with sacrificing thousands of your men for some twisted ideal of which method of killing is more honorable in total war.

Also can you answer this question I previously asked but no one bothered to answer: What is the difference between dropping two nukes and the massive firebombings of Tokyo (and Dresden, etc.)?
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 9978
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby Phil71 » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:09 am

LMAO wrote:
Phil71 wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
UFGN wrote:Define a soldier when you are fighting a war with conscripts?

These weren't solders in the modern sense, they were office workers, railwaymen, window cleaners. Their lives are of equal value to the people who sadly died

Its also wrong to say that there was no urgency. Japan was busy starving and beating thousands of Westerners to death in internment camps


M.I.L.T.A.R.Y Target!!

America could of Nuked an Army base or Marine dock, Airfield or even a bloody main Gov't building if they wanted to make it more legal or relevant bombing a purely civilian City was just pure spite.


Nuke an army base or marine dock?

With what? Some sort of miniature nuke?


LMAO wrote: :lol:

Don't you know we had the capability to build laser-guided nukes with a small payload in 1945?


*snip*

The funnier thing is that aerial bombing was hugely inaccurate back then. The approach was basically to fly over the target at an altitude high enough to avoid flack, open the bomb doors and hope some of your payload hits something important. Quite often it didn't.

So to suggest specific sites on the Japanese mainland could have been targeted with any sort of bomb is ridiculous.
User avatar
Phil71
Herbert Chapman
Herbert Chapman
 
Posts: 10569
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:04 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby LMAO » Wed Nov 27, 2019 8:27 am

Phil71 wrote:
LMAO wrote:
Phil71 wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
UFGN wrote:Define a soldier when you are fighting a war with conscripts?

These weren't solders in the modern sense, they were office workers, railwaymen, window cleaners. Their lives are of equal value to the people who sadly died

Its also wrong to say that there was no urgency. Japan was busy starving and beating thousands of Westerners to death in internment camps


M.I.L.T.A.R.Y Target!!

America could of Nuked an Army base or Marine dock, Airfield or even a bloody main Gov't building if they wanted to make it more legal or relevant bombing a purely civilian City was just pure spite.


Nuke an army base or marine dock?

With what? Some sort of miniature nuke?


LMAO wrote: :lol:

Don't you know we had the capability to build laser-guided nukes with a small payload in 1945?


*snip*

The funnier thing is that aerial bombing was hugely inaccurate back then. The approach was basically to fly over the target at an altitude high enough to avoid flack, open the bomb doors and hope some of your payload hits something important. Quite often it didn't.

So to suggest specific sites on the Japanese mainland could have been targeted with any sort of bomb is ridiculous.


Yup. The good old days of drop and pray.

Little Man's hypocenter was 780 feet off target. Fat Man in Nagasaki was 1.9 miles off target. And those pilots were some of the best of the best in their day!
User avatar
LMAO
Member of the Year 2019
Member of the Year 2019
 
Posts: 9978
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:53 pm

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby DiamondGooner » Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:48 pm

Pat Rice in Short Shorts wrote:
DiamondGooner wrote:
StLGooner wrote:I wonder how long he contemplated that decision? And if it haunted him at all afterwards?


Your giving these guys in politics far ....... far too much credit.

I've heard the things they say on the phone when they think people aren't listening.

JFK is one of the only Presidents I feel had a conscience ........... hence why they blew his head off.


JFK was the one who went into Vietnam. He was also the one who went head to head with the USSR over nukes in Cuba. He also was a Pacific war combat veteran. I think it is too cynical and revisionist to not view any of his or any past leader's decisions without fully understanding the times and what had influenced the thinking of those leaders.


JFK thought (and trust me his advisers put it in his lap) that he was fighting against Communism and an aggressive Russia.

US Troops were placed in Vietnam under JFK but it didn't go full blown until after the Gulf of Tonkin incident and was authorised to for full action under Lyndon Johnson.
In fact the US Military and pro war Gov't brass were pissed off with JFK for pulling back on Laos and being hesitant on full escalation of Vietnam, in fact its rumoured one of the reasons he got offed was because on top of a few other issues, he was considering pulling the troops from Vietnam.

JFK was dead before the Vietnam war went full GI Joe.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 30379
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Postby DiamondGooner » Wed Nov 27, 2019 3:58 pm

LMAO wrote:I thought it was the left who were snowflakes? And I thought you studied history? :think:

Hiroshima - headquarters of Chuugoku Regional Army, Army Marine Headquarters located in the port, military depot, key shipping center
Nagasaki - the home of a major Imperial Japan naval base, Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works also located there

But yes, do go on about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were two random cities that didn't play a major role in the Japanese war effort.

You underestimate the Japanese resolve. They would've died for their emperor and the glory of Japan. It would've taken many more deaths—soldiers, men, women, and children—than those who perished from the nukes before the war ended.


Snowflake or just not a top class w*nker?

I know exactly what the Japanese resolve is, Hari Kari because they all think their the Grandchild of a bloody Samurai.

Lets get this straight, I didn't say that America shouldn't have used Nukes, I as Elite Killer is stating think they could of picked less populace targets and still got the same message through to the Japanese brass.

If they ignored the first one then fair play, they obviously didn't believe the US would use them otherwise they'd of quit before the war started.
The Japanese must of known what nukes were capable of, the fact that they quit dead after their use shows where their head was at.

America went to far in retaliation for Pearl Harbour, they could of got the same result by dropping one in a much less populace area signalling to the Japanese "Here's what these can do .......... and we will use them" if the Japanese still didn't bow, nuke 4 cities, but its just human decency to give them the chance to surrender before wiping out civilians of that number.

Pearl Harbour was a military target, its not like Japan bombed Los Angeles into the dust.

............ and don't try the "I thought you studied history" routine, I've forgotten more about history than you've ever known, and I don't need Google to prove it, I could name you things you've never even heard of.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 30379
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests