[Demosthenes]

Its also funny how these people, who often say America is wrong to be friendly with numerous Dictators, turn around and suggest doing the exact same. Its really quite funny.

Agreed!

Irrelevant point, but your arrogance amazes me.

I think that the point you are trying to make is that you think what the US is doing is right, and therefore it must continue on it's course, even though the US is generally opposed internationally.

Most countries have a process whereby the decisions their government makes are, to a greater or lesser extent, debated and thought out.

The only reason I can think of for your opinion that the US must export war, globalise slave-wage labour, and ignore international bodies like the UN, is arrogance.

Actually quite relevant when grasped in proper context. Quite relevant indeed. Its funny that dismiss outright any chance at all the war is what it is. Instead you seek conspiracy theaory after conspiracy theory to explain things away.

Little kids don't seem to be the most rational thinkers, so your point appears non-existant.

Which EXACTLY proves my point.

If the only thing you see is arrogance than your quite blind to the concept of hating war but still understanding the concept of being the best at it as possible. Blind to the concept of "If you want peace prepare for war", and disturbingly content to follow along with the popular opinion of those in power around the world.

Most countries have a process whereby the decisions their government makes are, to a greater or lesser extent, debated and thought out.

Yeah us too, we debated away for 14 months before we took action, 14 months in which Iraq had plenty of time to comply with international law and let the UN inspectors in unfettered.

The only reason I can think of for your opinion that the US must export war, globalise slave-wage labour, and ignore international bodies like the UN, is arrogance.

Well you'd be wrong again. I know you don't think Iraq was a threat to anyone, nor did it pose a danger to anyone, but we did. So we laid down a set of ground rules for Iraq to follow. As had been their pattern for 12 some odd years they agreed to these rules and then did everything they could to weasel out of them. Counting on being able to exploit the weakness inherant in the international community you seem to have so much faith in, to bale them out, as they had been doing for 12 years. (You know those bastions of morality in Russia and France) So when time ran out we acted despite the wrangling of these supposed allies (for their own benefit) and despite the fact that they had signed resolution 1441 into law a little over a yeaar before. That is why I said what I said.

The international community thinks what it's news sourses tell it to think. Don't tell me how their US biased. That's a crock of shiiiiiiite!! If they were so damn biased you would think like I do. Plain and simple. They are very anti-US biased and it is wuite disturbing how many people blindly follow such news sourses.

There appears to be no shortage of that in the Republican party.

And their appears to be no shortage of arrogance and self-interested greed in the international community, its no wonder we get fed up and begin to say things as they are, deciding we are not getting anywhere by keeping the kid gloves on.

[S. P. Laroche]

Freedom, if the total elimination of Nazism was the goal of the US in WW2, they would not have forced the Japanese to unconditionally surrendered. The Japanese were Fascists, but hardly Nazis (A little hard to spout Aryan propaganda when your one of the targets to get destroyed). Read all my posts, and show me anywhere where I have said that the Japanese or the Germans were justified in anything they did. All I'm trying to point out is that neither side was justified in any of the horrors it wrote. If you don't think that dropping a horribly effective killing machine onto unarmed civilians (even if they are the "enemy") isn't a horrible act, well then you need to give your head a shake. As to America and the dictators they deal with; fine, I don't really care, but at least be up front about dealing with them in the first place. *cough* Iran-Contra Affair *cough*

[Freedom]

SP: The goal was the total elimination of The German-Italian-Japanese alliance.

I suggest you read my posts, before you claim that i should read yours. As i clearly said that dropping the bomb was a horrible thing, but i added i think it is certainly justified.

[Nox]

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy

Courtesy of the PC crowd, we now are innundated with revisionist history.

It has be alluded to (and ignored by many) the Code of Bushido under which the Japanese people lived.

I lived on Okinawa for 3 years. At the southern end of the island (south of Naha) is a place called suicide cliff. As the Americans pushed to finish the capture of the island ... 12,000 Okinawans met their demise rather than surrender to the US Forces.

The irony of this is that the Okinawans are an aboriginal people ... not Japanese. This shows a virtual unexplainable devotion to the Emporer Hirohito. What the PC crowd doesn't want to accept or believe is that the mainlanders would have fought the invasion forces to the death. Does anyone remember how few Japanese soldiers were captured during the war?

A nuke is a horrible weapon. The use of the nuke against the Japanese was necessary and really saved a whole bunch of lives (on both sides).

What is unfortunate is that the further away from August 1945 we get ... the further away from reality we get ... the void being filled with the PC morons.

Nox

[Comrade Ogilvy]

No offense S.P. Laroche but you missed my point.

My point was:

Whatever you believe, know your enemy and deal with them with as much force is as you feel is neccesssary to win, apoligizing for what is felt is necessary is for the politicians and "feel-gooders". It's terrible, but it is the harsh reality of war without the candy coating from the way I see it.

In the context of WWII only (which I meant for my comment to be taken) I feel that the blind obedience and savageness that the Japanese soldiers displayed and also the fanatacism of the Japanese civilians made both of them an enemy and one that could only be dealt with harshly, full and complete defeat. Their fanatacism and unwillingness to give up ( which demands a certain respect however misguided we see it as) I believe made it necessary for the bombs to be dropped.

[S. P. Laroche]

Rickshaw, thanks for clearing that up. In the context of WWII, then, do you justify the Rape of Nanking or the Holocaust? Both are events where the govenments of Japan and Germany, respectively, believed that their enemies (being the Chinese and the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, et cetera) needed to be dealt with harshly in order for their eventual surrender (or elimination).

[Khenlein]

Even though they may of been justified.Referring to the Evacuation of the Jews from Europe and the so called "Rape" of Nanking. Both were territories that were already quite firmly in the grasp of both the German and Japanese governments respectively, so they aren't really comparable. If the U.S invaded Japan and decided to summarily to pillage Hiroshima and then proceed to execute a number of thousands of people, that would comparable.

But in the context of World War two , no the use of the Atomic weapons wasn't unjustified or without merit. The firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden both resulted in the deaths of Hundreds of thousands of civilians. Why would the utilization of a Weapon that just happens to do it with 1 Bomb instead of a few thousand be subject to some sort of ethical dilemna.

To bring this into the modern light there has been discussion of introducing small scale tactical nuclear weapons as a tool for the War on Terror. The gift that keeps on giving.

[S. P. Laroche]

Why would the utilization of a Weapon that just happens to do it with 1 Bomb instead of a few thousand be subject to some sort of ethical dilemna.

Because that one bomb had other repercussions, such as radioactive fallout. The long term effects of splitting the atom weren't as well known as they are today, and they couldn't quite be sure what would happen.

[Khenlein]

double post

[Khenlein]

after bombing by U.S. in March 1945[Tokyo]. The incendiary bombs, a mixture of thermite and oxydizing agents sometimes including napalm, burned 200 km2 of the Japanese capital, killing more than 100,000 people.

“Seventy percent of the Dresden dead either suffocated or died from poison gases that turned their bodies green and red. The intense heat melted some bodies into the pavement like bubblegum, or shrunk them into three-foot long charred carcasses. Clean-up crews wore rubber boots to wade through the ‘human soup’ found in nearby caves. In other cases, the superheated air propelled victims skyward only to come down in tiny pieces as far as fifteen miles outside Dresden.”

Conservative estimates are 150,000 died during the Dresden Fire Boming.
Numbers of German casualties as a result of the Strategic bombing campaign waged by the RAF and the USAAF range from 650,000 to about 900,000.

The decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the first and last use of atomic weapons in combat—remains one of the most controversial in military history. Altogether, the two bombings killed an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. Though the two cities were nominally military targets, the overwhelming majority of the casualties were civilian.

Lets round up by say, 100,00 and say that as a result of the Atomic weapons dropped on there were 500,000 killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What makes the atomic weapons an extradoinary ethical dilemna in a war where the casualties are counted in the millions? We simply found a more efficient way to reach our aims via aerial bombardment. I yet fail to see what makes the hundreds of thousands dead because of Atomic weapons some vast ethical dilemna compared to other hundreds of thousands of deaths.

[S. P. Laroche]

It's an ethical dillema (and still is), because the use of a Nuclear Weapons leaves long lasting effects (most noticably radioactive fallout), which are very detrimental. Once a regular bomb is dropped, and the fires it has caused go out, the area is still useable, once all the destroyed objects have been removed. With Atomic weapons, the area is irradiated. You can't honestly tell me that destroying the very land of a place doesn't fill you with some sort of second thoughts.

[CasX]

S. P. Laroche is right. There are very long lasting detrimental effects, apart from a whole lot of immediate destruction, some we probably have yet to learn about. The Pacific atolls where nuclear testing was carried out until late last century are a good example. The surrounding sea was poisoned, water supplies were poisoned, radiation levels are still insanely high etc.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

The IAEA's Bikini Advisory Group preliminary findings issued in 1996 contain the following statements with regard to background radiation on Bikini (Bikini Atoll, Marshal Islands, Pacific Ocean):

"It is safe to walk on all of the islands...The Advisory Group reaffirmed: although the residual radioactivity on islands in Bikini Atoll is still higher than on other atolls in the Marshall islands, it is not hazardous to health at the levels measured. Indeed, there are many places in the world where people have been living for generations with higher levels of radioactivity from natural sources - such as the geological surroundings and the sun - than there is now on Bikini Atoll...By all internationally agreed scientific and medical criteria...the air, the land surface, the lagoon water and the drinking water are all safe. There is no radiological risk in visiting the lagoon or the islands. The nuclear weapon tests have left practically no cesium in marine life. The cesium deposited in the lagoon was dispersed in the ocean long ago.

I beleive even the reefs have grown back even larger than before.

[Boondock Saint]

JT ... the most recent tests of nukes in the Pacific were in the 90's ... by France ... the islands you mention were used by the US in the 50's ...

I 'think' Cas might be talking about those islands used by the French, though not only of course ... but ... seeing how he was refering to a more recent testing ...

[S. P. Laroche]

The Pacific atolls where nuclear testing was carried out until late last century are a good example. The surrounding sea was poisoned, water supplies were poisoned, radiation levels are still insanely high etc.

Don't forget it also created Godzilla.

[Adrien]

Sorry to intervene in an already well launched debate, especially when my advice may have already been given by somebody else but i wanted to say something.

At first i thought that it was a 100% useless slaughter, when i saw for example the documents about the japanese government trying to capitulate, and especially when i saw the suffering caused for nothing if the message was also for the Soviets.

But i discussed that with my history teacher, and now i'd say that i think that it had one good side, and maybe that the States did not even think about this side when they launch the bomb, i don't know.

So, we had to do with Japan what we did to Nazi Germany: a complete, total, irrefutable defeat. Because if we didn't, we took the risk to make what we did in the 1st world war (let them say: "hey look we were not defeated, our army went back home in order" etc. because, among other reasons, it led to the second war).

Now on a human scale it was absolutely horrible..

[Comrade Ogilvy]

S.P Laroche,
I believe I said that basically deal with your enemy with whatever force you feel is neccessary, non- denominational non- political, no sides taken.

Since I live in the USA and see it from our perspective, I believe we were right for doing what WE did, if I lived in Japan and I believed wholeheartedly in the rightness of imperial Japan in WWII I would probably say the the Rape of Nanking justified the ends(which actually. their brutality backfired because Chiang Kai Shek used this example among others to help unify the Chinese which were basically seperate provinces upon themselves at the time, but that is another story) It matters what perspective you have and what side you are on, everyone has their reasons. I wasn't saying anybody else was wrong or right in doing what they did (which I feel Japan was wrong but they did what they felt would work), just that we (US) did what seemed necessary at the time.

Things are not always in black and white, everyone has a perspective and what side you are on depends on what you think is right or wrong.

I believe that man will always kill, slaughter and destroy for various reasons. It has always been that way and I believe that we are hard wired to destroy ourselves and take everyone else with us (eventually) We are too smart for our own good, but in the meantime "might makes right" I am not Pro-war, just see it as a reality we cannot escape.

[Demosthenes]

I believe that man will always kill, slaughter and destroy for various reasons. It has always been that way...

When I got my hunting liscense a couple years ago we had to take a hunter's safety course which taught among other things resposible gun ownership(basically the things my dad taught me when I was young...but oh well) Anyway one of the best points made in the class was the fact man is a predator. Its just what we are. And like any predator with a lack of natural prey we will begin to prey on ourselves. I think probably most conflicts both internal and external are a reflection of this.

Take for example the inner city where "predators" prey upon the weak. If these young men were allowed to hunt, for instance, would that go a long way to satisfying their predatory instincts? This class taught that they thought so. I believe there is probably a grain of truth to that somewhere as well. Maybe this is a bit of a simplistic example but nonetheless illistrates your point.

Oh and I agree that dropping the bomb was necessary, in case someone missed it. Although as any rational person should, I wish that it would not have been necessary.

[Khenlein]

It's an ethical dillema (and still is), because the use of a Nuclear Weapons leaves long lasting effects (most noticably radioactive fallout), which are very detrimental. Once a regular bomb is dropped, and the fires it has caused go out, the area is still useable, once all the destroyed objects have been removed. With Atomic weapons, the area is irradiated. You can't honestly tell me that destroying the very land of a place doesn't fill you with some sort of second thoughts.

No. We had it, we used it, they lost.





^ The waste land formerly known as Hiroshima, It is not a buslting City in Japan,, its a nuclear waste land. Don't pay attention to the picture above or this website http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/index-E.html. ITs obviously a made up sight full of fantasy information.


My only complaint is that there were more Bombs scheduled but they weren't used because of some pesky surrender by the Japanese Emperor. Go figure,

[Nox]

My only complaint is that there were more Bombs scheduled but they weren't used because of some pesky surrender by the Japanese Emperor. Go figure,

Those 'scheduled' bombs were still in CONUS. The earliest they would have been deployed and used in-theater would have been late September or early October. This is still in the height of Typhoon season. The typhoons form north and east of Guam (near Tinian where the 509th was based). Those typhoons normally take one of two routes: straight across the Philippines into SEA and Southern China or a northerly arc across Okinawa and into Japan. A typhoon would/could have delayed a nuke mission up to 10 days to two weeks depending on the speed of the storm.

I know most of you have heard of the Kamikazi, or Divine Wind. This goes back to the typhoon that destroyed the Mongol invasion fleet in the 13th century.

My point: The lack of in-country nukes and the weather were indeed factors which could/would effect subsequent nukes in Japan (not to mention Khenlein's point about the surrender).

Nox