Why is BP taking all the blame?

Christie disappears, unwilling to learn and unwilling to admit she was wrong. :(

Har, that'll be the day I disappear from controversy.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of books studying the Japanese bombings from every angle and every political bias, so your assertion that the bombing was slam-dunk correct is bogus. 100% correct suggests there would be no controversy over the decision.

I also find it laughable that those people can justify bombing thousands of innocent civilians in Japan or Dresden, another disproportionate attack, but when somebody fights back it's a disaster of cosmic proportions.
 
Har, that'll be the day I disappear from controversy.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of books studying the Japanese bombings from every angle and every political bias, so your assertion that the bombing was slam-dunk correct is bogus. 100% correct suggests there would be no controversy over the decision.

I also find it laughable that those people can justify bombing thousands of innocent civilians in Japan or Dresden, another disproportionate attack, but when somebody fights back it's a disaster of cosmic proportions.
Just because libtards continue to whine about a difficult decision doesn't mean that decision wasn't 100% correct. Are you denying my assertion that it saved millions of Japanese lives or not?
 
Just because libtards continue to whine about a difficult decision doesn't mean that decision wasn't 100% correct. Are you denying my assertion that it saved millions of Japanese lives or not?

I'm neither confirming nor denying it because there's no way to know what would have happened in the end if the bomb hadn't been dropped.

What I do know for sure is that if the bomb hadn't been dropped, thousands of Japanese wouldn't have lost their lives in the blasts.
 
I'm neither confirming nor denying it because there's no way to know what would have happened in the end if the bomb hadn't been dropped.

What I do know for sure is that if the bomb hadn't been dropped, thousands of Japanese wouldn't have lost their lives in the blasts.
Anyone who's not retarded knows that. Anyone who has a clear knowledge of history knows that I am right.
 
Anyone who's not retarded knows that. Anyone who has a clear knowledge of history knows that I am right.

Am I supposed to be intimidated or insulted because of your "retarded" comment? I learned a long time ago that insults only hurt when they hit the target's Achilles heel, and being called "retarded" isn't mine.

I've read about the Manhattan Project, the Potsdam Conference and the decision to drop the bomb, and it wasn't all cut-and-dried; there was a lot of posturing on Truman's part because he wanted to present a facade of American superiority to Stalin, and the bomb was his ace in the hole.

The Japanese were involved in surrender negotiations for months before the bombing and the Allies rejected their terms. However, it was just a matter of time as Japanese citizens were starving and starting to rebel against continued warfare.

Truman's 8/6/45 diary entry suggests more chest-beating than anything else.

7/25/45 Diary Entry:

"We met at 11 A.M. today. That is Stalin, Churchill and the U.S. President. But I had a most important session with Lord Mountbattan & General Marshall before than. We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

"Anyway we 'think' we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

"The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].

"He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful."

[Privately, Truman later expressed misgivings about the mass killing of civilians in Hiroshima; see the "Didn't the Japanese Deserve It?" section in Random Ramblings on Hiroshima.]

8/6/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the first time he publicly gave a reason for using the atomic bomb on Japan:

"The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold.

"If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 197, 199).


http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/index.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm
 
Am I supposed to be intimidated or insulted because of your "retarded" comment? I learned a long time ago that insults only hurt when they hit the target's Achilles heel, and being called "retarded" isn't mine.

I've read about the Manhattan Project, the Potsdam Conference and the decision to drop the bomb, and it wasn't all cut-and-dried; there was a lot of posturing on Truman's part because he wanted to present a facade of American superiority to Stalin, and the bomb was his ace in the hole.

The Japanese were involved in surrender negotiations for months before the bombing and the Allies rejected their terms. However, it was just a matter of time as Japanese citizens were starving and starting to rebel against continued warfare.

Truman's 8/6/45 diary entry suggests more chest-beating than anything else.

7/25/45 Diary Entry:

"We met at 11 A.M. today. That is Stalin, Churchill and the U.S. President. But I had a most important session with Lord Mountbattan & General Marshall before than. We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

"Anyway we 'think' we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

"The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].

"He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful."

[Privately, Truman later expressed misgivings about the mass killing of civilians in Hiroshima; see the "Didn't the Japanese Deserve It?" section in Random Ramblings on Hiroshima.]

8/6/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the first time he publicly gave a reason for using the atomic bomb on Japan:

"The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold.

"If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 197, 199).


http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/index.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

Big deal, I've read about Truman in detail.

Are you denying my assertion that it saved millions of Japanese lives or not?
 
Big deal, I've read about Truman in detail.

Are you denying my assertion that it saved millions of Japanese lives or not?
He doesn't know and won't take a position from the facts as presented because he'd rather say that it was the worst thing that ever happened and we're all evil because of it.

Personally, for me, thousands is better than even one million, and I believe that in the end it saved lives while changing the face of the planet forever.
 
He doesn't know and won't take a position from the facts as presented because he'd rather say that it was the worst thing that ever happened and we're all evil because of it.

Personally, for me, thousands is better than even one million, and I believe that in the end it saved lives while changing the face of the planet forever.

She may have a few whiskers on her chin, but I wouldn't go as far as calling her a "he".

Just sayin'...:cof1:
 
He doesn't know and won't take a position from the facts as presented because he'd rather say that it was the worst thing that ever happened and we're all evil because of it.

Personally, for me, thousands is better than even one million, and I believe that in the end it saved lives while changing the face of the planet forever.

We know rabid righties salivate at the thought of bombing the crap out of foreigners, and squeal like stuck pigs whenever those actions come back to bite them on the butt.

The difference between us is that I don't swallow nationalistic BS about any country while people like you are apparently content to narrow your perspective.
 
Har, that'll be the day I disappear from controversy.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of books studying the Japanese bombings from every angle and every political bias, so your assertion that the bombing was slam-dunk correct is bogus. 100% correct suggests there would be no controversy over the decision.

I also find it laughable that those people can justify bombing thousands of innocent civilians in Japan or Dresden, another disproportionate attack, but when somebody fights back it's a disaster of cosmic proportions.

I haven't seen you offer one bit of information that might refute the presentation that the Japanese government was prepared to have every civilian fight to the death.
 
I'm neither confirming nor denying it because there's no way to know what would have happened in the end if the bomb hadn't been dropped.

What I do know for sure is that if the bomb hadn't been dropped, thousands of Japanese wouldn't have lost their lives in the blasts.

IF Japan hadn't started a war, there wouldn't have been a such a large loss of life either; but IF'S have nothing to do with it.
 
Am I supposed to be intimidated or insulted because of your "retarded" comment? I learned a long time ago that insults only hurt when they hit the target's Achilles heel, and being called "retarded" isn't mine.

I've read about the Manhattan Project, the Potsdam Conference and the decision to drop the bomb, and it wasn't all cut-and-dried; there was a lot of posturing on Truman's part because he wanted to present a facade of American superiority to Stalin, and the bomb was his ace in the hole.

The Japanese were involved in surrender negotiations for months before the bombing and the Allies rejected their terms. However, it was just a matter of time as Japanese citizens were starving and starting to rebel against continued warfare.

Truman's 8/6/45 diary entry suggests more chest-beating than anything else.

7/25/45 Diary Entry:

"We met at 11 A.M. today. That is Stalin, Churchill and the U.S. President. But I had a most important session with Lord Mountbattan & General Marshall before than. We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.

"Anyway we 'think' we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexican desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more.

"The weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop this terrible bomb on the old capital or the new [Kyoto or Tokyo].

"He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement [known as the Potsdam Proclamation] asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful."

[Privately, Truman later expressed misgivings about the mass killing of civilians in Hiroshima; see the "Didn't the Japanese Deserve It?" section in Random Ramblings on Hiroshima.]

8/6/45: Excerpt from public statement by President Truman. This was the first time he publicly gave a reason for using the atomic bomb on Japan:

"The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid many fold.

"If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth." (Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1945, pg. 197, 199).


http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/index.htm

http://www.doug-long.com/hst.htm

You might want to re-read your information; because the Japanese would never have rebeled against their god and the Emporer was their god.
 
We know rabid righties salivate at the thought of bombing the crap out of foreigners, and squeal like stuck pigs whenever those actions come back to bite them on the butt.

The difference between us is that I don't swallow nationalistic BS about any country while people like you are apparently content to narrow your perspective.
Right, because the valuable allies we gained in the Japanese is "biting our butt"...

:rolleyes:

Narrow vision isn't the problem of people who realize that killing less is better.
 
My answer hasn't changed from post 343 and I'm not going to give credence to a hypothetical.

Might I suggest then, that you never, ever, ever, for any reason, take on a position of leadership, where hypotheticals become reality? Because that would be an accident just waiting to happen.

Hiding behind that response, btw, is meaningless...
 
Might I suggest then, that you never, ever, ever, for any reason, take on a position of leadership, where hypotheticals become reality? Because that would be an accident just waiting to happen.

Hiding behind that response, btw, is meaningless...

No hiding was necessary. I don't agree with his point that millions of lives were saved because we dropped the bombs. How could I be any clearer?

And btw, what else would the US say about the bombings, except that they "saved lives"? Do you really expect those involved to look back and say "we were wrong"? It doesn't happen and it hasn't happened. A historian or politician who challenges that prevailing opinion is tagged as an America-hating, enemy-supporting traitor. You, as a student of history, should be especially sensitive to this.

A historian who looks at events from one viewpoint only isn't worthy of the name.
 
No hiding was necessary. I don't agree with his point that millions of lives were saved because we dropped the bombs. How could I be any clearer?

And btw, what else would the US say about the bombings, except that they "saved lives"? Do you really expect those involved to look back and say "we were wrong"? It doesn't happen and it hasn't happened. A historian or politician who challenges that prevailing opinion is tagged as an America-hating, enemy-supporting traitor. You, as a student of history, should be especially sensitive to this.

A historian who looks at events from one viewpoint only isn't worthy of the name.

Minus the "traitor" label, he damned well would be all of those things. Your refusal to accept hypotheticals makes you nothing but a contrarian. It most certainly doesn't make you right, and far from humane.

As for outside perspectives, I'm having a difficult time finding summaries of his thought-processes, but Taketsugu Tsurutani was a professor at WSU in the 80s, and he articulated what post-invasion Japan would have looked like, with the Soviets occupying the northern island, and an incredibly bleak picture imanating from the carnage. He used to say that he couldn't work in Japanese intelligentia circles, because of a perceived lack of honesty about the situation.
 
Minus the "traitor" label, he damned well would be all of those things. Your refusal to accept hypotheticals makes you nothing but a contrarian. It most certainly doesn't make you right, and far from humane.

As for outside perspectives, I'm having a difficult time finding summaries of his thought-processes, but Taketsugu Tsurutani was a professor at WSU in the 80s, and he articulated what post-invasion Japan would have looked like, with the Soviets occupying the northern island, and an incredibly bleak picture imanating from the carnage. He used to say that he couldn't work in Japanese intelligentia circles, because of a perceived lack of honesty about the situation.

People way more knowledgeable than me, in fact some great scientific and military minds, have disagreed with the bombings. I've read both sides of the issue and favor the anti-bombing position.

What's curious is how you and SM seem to take it as a personal affront that anybody could hold a different position on this than your own. You guys won! The bombs were dropped. Any discussion of it now is simply an academic exercise. Why are you two so bent over a differing opinion?

I find it especially strange that two people who have no problems talking about their strong religious beliefs haven't taken those beliefs into consideration when it came to using disproportionate force against a population. Are you at all familiar with Just War theory as moral theology plus military ethics, or is that simply an academic position with you (pl.)?

HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?


~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
~~~ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY
~~~HERBERT HOOVER
~~~GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR
~~~JOSEPH GREW (Under Sec. of State)
~~~JOHN McCLOY (Assistant Sec. of War)
~~RALPH BARD (Under Sec. of the Navy)
~~~LEWIS STRAUSS
~~~PAUL NITZE
~~~ALBERT EINSTEIN
~~~LEO SZILARD
~~~ELLIS ZACHARIAS
~~~GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ
~~~BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE


...July 1945 poll of 150 atomic scientists regarding whether and how the atomic bomb should be used in the war with Japan (Takaki 1995, 134-5). The poll gave five alternatives: (1) use in manner most effective from a military point of view to bring about prompt Japanese surrender while minimizing the loss of American lives, (2) give military demonstration to Japan with opportunity for surrender before full use of weapon, (3) give experimental demonstration in this country with opportunity for surrender before full use of weapon, (4) do not use militarily but make public the experimental results, or (5) maintain as secret as possible and refrain from using the bombs in the war. President Truman chose alternative 1, even though only 15 percent of the scientists supported it.

Takaki, Ronald. Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb.
 
Back
Top