 sj |
||
|
||
BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Aug 15 - 03:42 AM Or what? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Raggytash Date: 10 Aug 15 - 03:56 AM Somehow Jim I can't see it making a scrap of difference. Although you'll be pleased to read in the report that some, many, most, all (delete as applicable) "historians" are now saying that the action wasn't justified as Japan were about to surrender anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Aug 15 - 04:37 AM "Japan were about to surrender anyway." Picked that up from our papers too. Interesting letter from a British soldier who was a veteran of the Japanese campaign and was hospitalised from the fighting at the time. He wrote that it was a deeply immoral act which lost the allies any high ground they might have had. Makes sense to me Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Aug 15 - 08:12 AM Prisoners, those who survived, think differently. How could anyone know at the time that surrender was imminent, if indeed it was? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: akenaton Date: 10 Aug 15 - 08:27 AM Just been reading about the Japanese Army's treatment of prisoners in Nanking, I despair of humanity sometimes. The guy who authorised the use of the bomb was Harry Truman (Democrat), to save American lives apparently, but the fact that Hiroshima was protected from conventional bombing for years, points to the conclusion that it was in fact a scientific test on real human beings.....the warriors wanted to study the dead and dying.....even depriving them of medical treatment to see how long it took them to die and what the effect of radiation was on live humans. There was never any high ground on either side, just a stinking cesspit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,# Date: 10 Aug 15 - 09:05 AM http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,crazy little woman Date: 10 Aug 15 - 11:06 AM Guys, there were 20 million deaths in China alone. How long was this supposed to go on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Amos Date: 10 Aug 15 - 11:50 AM The "just about to surrender anyway" notion is over-simplified. There were factors in the Japanese power structure who were determined not to. The population of Japan was ready to fight off a physical invasion tooth and nail. America had already lost tens of thousands of men in a war that was brought to them at Pearl Harbor. So I think Truman's decision was understandable, at the time, especially considering that an atomic weapon had never been used before. It was gruwesome, horrible, unspeakable--but so were the previous four or five years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,# Date: 10 Aug 15 - 12:15 PM An atomic weapon had been used, Amos. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: akenaton Date: 10 Aug 15 - 12:22 PM You have it right #. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 10 Aug 15 - 12:56 PM Monday morning quarterbacking by many people who weren't around at the time. The Japanese (who were not exactly famous for being kindly to their enemies) had said that, even though it was obvious by then that they had lost the war (that they had started--by first invading China, then with a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, without declaring a state of war, as international law demanded) had said that they would not surrender. Truman decided to use the bomb to end the war quickly, to save lives--Japanese lives included! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: MGM·Lion Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:01 PM It had been tested -- not quite the same thing, when talking of a weapon, as its having been 'used' in the sense of aggressively deployed as a means of attack on the enemy. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: akenaton Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:03 PM Why did they prohibit conventional bombing over Hiroshima for over a year before detonation? It was a test pit. Why did they allow the victims to die under supervision? It was a test pit. You demean yourself by your refusal to admit the obvious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:09 PM And why the second bomb, on Nagasaki? After Hiroshima, the Japanese high command insisted on continuing the war, claiming that we had only the one bomb and since we had already used it, nothing had changed. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:13 PM "Test pit?" Okay, Ake. Let's have some documentation on that. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Bill D Date: 10 Aug 15 - 01:29 PM This will never be decided. Amos is correct that "There were factors in the Japanese power structure who were determined not to." "A group of young army officers stormed into the palace in a failed attempt to steal the records and block the surrender speech, but palace officials desperately protected the records, which were safely delivered to NHK for radio transmission the next day. " It is impossible to do a double-blind experiment as to whether waiting or bombing would 'save more American lives'. Estimates of waiting time range from a few days to a few months... and hostilities in various places would have continued. No doubt Japan could not have held out for many months.. but whether invading the home island would have been necessary if the emperor had not spoken is just conjecture But the real point of contention is whether those who claim "it was not necessary" are able to read Truman's mind about the 'real' motive... Was it .." to demonstrate the new weapon of mass destruction to the Soviet Union." ? Certainly no absolute proof of this has been shown. For us, it is impossible to re-create the mind-set of Truman, who had been dropped into this mess just a couple of months earlier, but who knew in great detail what had happened in the last 4 years. All we can know is that everyone was tired of war and that no matter how we 2nd guess motives, Japan DID surrender after a few days. As to the assertion by some that the scientists 'wanted to see' what the bomb would do to humans.... They had already seen its power. I really doubt there was much to learn on that score, and I REALLY doubt anyone suggested to Truman that he do it with that in mind. What is important is that we learn that humans should NEVER resort to such measures again............ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,# Date: 10 Aug 15 - 02:22 PM "It had been tested -- not quite the same thing, when talking of a weapon, as its having been 'used' in the sense of aggressively deployed as a means of attack on the enemy." Regardless, they knew the effect it would have on a largely civilian population. Excuse it whatever way you choose, but they knew what the bomb would do. Was it worth it? Wiser heads than mine will have to decide that. Let me ask, was Dresden worth it? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Aug 15 - 02:39 PM It did much less than the Tokyo fire storm caused by conventional bombs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Stim Date: 10 Aug 15 - 02:40 PM It is worth noting that a group of the Manhattan Project scientists signed the Szilárd Petition asking that the bomb not be dropped, or at least that the Japanese be told about the bomb and given the choice to surrender or be blasted to smithereens. Curiously, Edward Teller, (who later became known for his aggressive advocacy of nuclear weaponry), apparently intended to sign it, and J. Robert Oppenheimer (who later became known for being aggressively anti-nuke) talked him out of it, saying essentially that they'd been hired to develop the bomb, and that its actual use was above their pay-grade. This, of course, is an iteration of the "Nuremberg Defense" that was so funny in "The Germans" episode of "Fawlty Towers" and all those Mel Brooks movies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: michaelr Date: 10 Aug 15 - 11:32 PM What. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Aug 15 - 03:33 AM In 2015, the destruction of a city full of people would be the most shocking and terrible event in our lifetime. In 1945 it was a commonplace. Over 100 000 people had just been incinerated in a single attack on Tokyo without comment. The cities of Germany, Britain and much of Europe lay in ruins. The destruction of two more meant little. Only the weapon was novel. Every day that Japan fought on, more of our people died. People just wanted it to end. We just can not see it now as they saw it then. (I am off now for a couple of weeks.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Mr Red Date: 11 Aug 15 - 04:48 AM the BBC documentary last night on the "bomb" clearly stated the view that the Hiroshima bomb was dropped to demonstrate the fire power of the Allies because the war had no sight of any conclusion and was not going well for the Allies. Many military and civilian deaths on both sides would inevitably be involved with a continuation of the war, plus casualties. The programme - involving many of those wot were there - stated that Japan was invited to surrender after Hiroshima and didn't. Some of the Manhattan Project wanted to demonstrate the bomb to frighten Japan into surrender. After Nagasaki (tertiary target chosen due to the weather) the Emperor intervened and told the government/military to surrender. Japan may have been suing for a negotiated settlement, diplomats make these noises, it can be a military tactic to weaken the resolve of the opposition. But how genuine or strong were the voices? History is made by the winners, and those that weren't there at the time are in a better position to win that fight! History is indeed bunk, there are those trying to bunk it up! The programme is on iPlayer for those wanting more clarity on the subject |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 11 Aug 15 - 05:02 AM Those who opposed the use of the bomb against Japan in 1945 could afford to state whatever they liked because they would not have been involved in Operation Downfall and it's two stages (Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet). Very telling that the one man who would have had to command and direct operations related to the proposed invasion of Japan was not consulted at the time. Olympic was timed to commence in October/November 1945 and Coronet only if Olympic was successful in April 1946. By May/June of 1945 the US Pacific Fleet was in a truly shocking state after fighting for years at sea. In approaching the Japanese mainland it found itself operating thousands of miles from any significant naval support facility. Ships needed boiler cleaning, furnaces re-bricking, serious defect maintenance required on many of their ships. Japanese air strength in May stood at an estimated 2,900 aircraft, by October that number would have been nearer 9,000. And while the Allied forces would have been operating at long range with the launch base at Okinawa the Japanese would have had all the "home advantages" that Great Britain had during the Battle of Britain. Casualty estimates based on previous operations (Battle of Luzon and the Battle to take Okinawa) would cost "1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities." – Source: Study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley. Those figures do not of course include those who would have died as a direct consequence of any invasion - Japanese orders were that the second one allied soldier set foot on the Japanese mainland - ALL allied POWs in Japanese hands were to be executed. Plain fact was that to undertake Operation Olympic the allies only had the capacity to "lift" an invasion force of 650,000 and those men would be faced with an enemy force numbering at least 2 million, not counting the hostility of the civilian population. In planning an attack the general rule-of-thumb is that the attacking force outnumbers the defenders by a ratio of 3:1 in order for the attack to have any chance of success. Operation Olympic would have been a nightmare. Was it the right thing to do at the time? Most definitely yes, when the alternatives were to be considered. It most definitely in the long run saved lives. Dresden? I leave that one to "Bomber" Harris's comment (Harris actually did not see the point in attacking it but was ordered to do so by Churchill and Portal at the specific request of the Russians) - "All I can say is that all the German towns put together aren't worth the bones of a British Grenadier!" - In terms of destruction and death many other raids on German cities were far, far worse, most notable being Operation Gomorrah (The bombing of Hamburg). Albert Speer said after the war that if Harris had been able to repeat that raid on Hamburg on three other German cities the war would have ended in 1943 - Harris however didn't have the aircraft to do that. Wing Commander T.D. Weldon, a tutor in Moral Philosophy at Magdalen College Oxford [lecturing on "The Ethics of Bombing"]: " ... So therefore, it is not a question of ethics at all! War is not the opposite of peace, nor is it a corollary of it! War is a complete breakdown in civilization, so it shouldn't have "ethics" thrust upon it. Because that way lies danger; that way, war becomes acceptable! The means of death and destruction are immaterial, war was always war, the only difference today is the scale of it! So, when this war is finally over, the world should accept that there is no limit; there are no "Hague Rules of Combat" anymore! The worse war is, the more savage it becomes! When people understand this, and stop trying to limit it, then perhaps, we shall achieve lasting peace!" Dr. Cyril Garbett, the Archbishop of York, in The Times on 25 June 1943: "`Often in life there is no clear choice between absolute right and wrong; frequently the choice has to be made of the lesser of two evils'and it is a lesser evil to bomb a war-loving Germany than to sacrifice the lives of thousands of our own fellow-countrymen ... and to delay delivering millions now held in slavery' The British naval blockade of Germany in the First World War caused more civilian deaths in Germany than the strategic bombing campaign of the Second World War and that excludes the numbers of civilians who died as a result of the Spanish Flu in 1918/1919. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Aug 15 - 06:18 AM So the good old frock-loving Archbishop of York knew that "Germany" was "war-loving", did he? Which "Germany" was he talking about, I wonder? The Germany of devastated cities, bereaved and homeless families? I'm amazed that you bring him to support your argument. His statement could have been lifted straight out of 1984. Nothing quite so effective as demonising your "enemy", is there, even when the vast majority of that "enemy" are your enemy only by accident of birth? Anything to justify collective punishment... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 11 Aug 15 - 07:44 AM Well let me see now - "Which "Germany" was he talking about, I wonder?" - He wrote his letter in June 1943 - So could it probably have been these Germans he was talking about: They all knew what Lebensraum meant and what it would involve Many other wonderful pictures of rapturous Germans welcoming the news of the take over by armed force of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France. They did not give two hoots for the devastated cities that they created Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc, etc. No-one needed to demonise them - they did a damn good job of doing that entirely on their own. The Archbishop's comments were made at the time with the full approval of Lambeth Palace - so are relevant for the time. International law did not protect civilians from bombardment from the sea, the ground, or the air: The 1923 Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare was the first authoritative attempt to clarify and formulate a comprehensive code of conduct, but they were never adopted in legally binding terms. Growing awareness of the military potential of aircraft throughout the 1920s and 1930s ultimately proved too serious an obstacle to reaching an agreement. One of the main stumbling blocks was the inability to establish an acceptable definition of a legitimate military target under the new conditions of total war between industrialised states. Air Marshal Sir Robert Saundby summed up this conundrum nicely when he wrote: "It is generally agreed, for example, that the man who loads or fires a field-gun is a military target. So is the gun itself, and the ammunition dump which supplies it. So is the truck-driver who transports ammunition from the base to the dump. So -- in the last two World Wars -- was the man who transported weapons, ammunition, raw materials, etc., by sea. But are the weapons and war-like stores on their way from the factories to the bases, and the men who transport them, not also military targets? And what about weapons under construction in the factories, and the men who make them? Are they not also military targets? And if they are not, where do you draw the line? If they are military targets, are not the industrial areas and the services -- gas, electricity -- that keep industry going, also military targets? Or is it permissible to starve these civilian workers by blockade, or shell them if you can get at them, but not to bomb them from the air? This is surely a `reductio ad absurdum'." Factories making armaments and the transport bringing them to the battlefronts naturally were included in the category of legitimate targets once the means of attacking them were available. Consequently those civilians in them or dangerously close to them might just have to be equated with civilians in legitimately attacked places. Moreover, precedent was on the side of the air planners. Naval bombardment of ports and towns was an accepted act of war. It was even codified in Article 2 of the Convention on Naval Bombardment, signed at The Hague in 1907. Article 2 stipulated that a naval commander who used his ships' guns to destroy military objectives in an undefended port or town `incur[red] no responsibility for any unavoidable damage which may be caused by a bombardment under such circumstances'. The advent of air power merely increased the opportunity of reaching and destroying such targets. Justified - YES Necessary - YES |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Gda Music Date: 11 Aug 15 - 07:55 AM Sorry to drift from this current gloom and doom thread but I`m disappointed that there`s no mention yet to indicate that there is a Happy VJ Day - 70th anniversary celebration taking place this weekend on 15 Aug 2015. I was 13 at the time and can well remember the day we heard the horror news that an atomic bomb had been dropped and exploded over Hiroshima. Then the second similar bomb which landed a few days later, this time targeted on Nagasaki. Soon after that came the Japanese surrender and as excited schoolboys we had already experienced the street parties that followed the VE Day celebrations on 8 May 1945. We then certainly looked forward to celebrating the Victory over Japan - VJ Day 15 August 1945. Many years later I happened to hear a tune from the 50s, it was a calypso from Lord Kitchener with his *Chinese never had a VJ Day*. Those particular clever lyrics of his intrigued me to the extent that I needed to seriously think more about his musical message. https://youtu.be/nPIqHSLcJJg Lighten up! GJ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Aug 15 - 08:58 AM Necessary and justified to immolate thousands of innocent children? I wonder how you might have felt had they been yours....there but for fortune, eh, Teribus? The justifying argument usually made that the bombs saved lives is entirely mischievous. We simply can't know that. We also can't know that threatening bombs dropped on the slopes of uninhabited Mount Fuji wouldn't equally have brought about surrender. The case for slaughtering thousands of innocent civilians is far from having been made. And the fact that other cities were blitzed just as badly is no more than a facile playground argument. And I'm amazed that you could fall for the Archbishop's blanket demonisation of a whole nation's population. I seem to remember that the Holocaust was justified by the Nazis in that same way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 11 Aug 15 - 09:40 AM I seem to remember that the Holocaust was justified by the Nazis in that same way. Logical fallacy of false equivalence but....what the hey! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: MGM·Lion Date: 11 Aug 15 - 10:06 AM And aren't you 'demonising' the Nazis then, Steve? Or had they, IYO, resigned their membership of the human race? That sort of relativism is the argument of a -- er -- not-right-bright-nik. ≈M≈ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Greg F. Date: 11 Aug 15 - 10:16 AM false equivalence Not entirely....... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Aug 15 - 12:02 PM Where's the false equivalence? The Archbishop and Teribus justify the bombing of cities because everyone living in them was The Other, German or Japanese. The Nazis (not the German people, note) justified the Holocaust because all the killed were The Other, mainly Jews. Neither Teribus, the Man of Cloth nor the Nazis made allowance for the fact that many, or most, of the victims had nothing to do with disadvantaging their killers. A perfect equivalence, I'd say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 11 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM How would it have been different to us now if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had, instead, been firebombed ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 11 Aug 15 - 01:02 PM Sorry, bad English. To us now how would it be different if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had, instead, been firebombed ? In terms of the destruction and civilian loss of life it was similar. In terms of nuclear bombs they were and are primarily symbolic. The were tiny. Off the shelf deployed bombs are 400 times the size. The largest device ever exploded was over 2,000 times more powerful and could have been twice that. Nuclear Weapon yield |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 11 Aug 15 - 01:32 PM "The Archbishop and Teribus justify the bombing of cities because everyone living in them was The Other, German or Japanese." Have we said something as simple as that Shaw or is that what you would have liked us to say? The Archbishop writing in the middle of the war quite rightly said that there is no simple right and wrong of it - it cannot be reduced to that black-n-white picture you always seem to want to paint through the prism of today's attitudes. Great Britain and her allies were fighting a war of survival against one of the vilest regimes the world has ever seen - if people are going to die then let them be the enemy. What I have said is that the specific raids being discussed were justifiable at the time and necessary in order to save lives. Perhaps just to see what might have happened they should not have gone ahead with the prospect of the war dragging on another 9 months (With no ensuing deaths?? - Can't see how myself) Japan bombed to bits, people starving and anything up to 5 to 11 million people killed. Oh and if We simply cannot say then that applies to both cases, someone, Harry Truman had to make a decision - he did and he did it to save American lives - there was a war going on, and he fully intended to win it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Aug 15 - 03:06 PM It was you who reduced it to black and white. Here's what you said: Many other wonderful pictures of rapturous Germans welcoming the news of the take over by armed force of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium and France. They did not give two hoots for the devastated cities that they created Warsaw, Rotterdam, etc, etc. No-one needed to demonise them - they did a damn good job of doing that entirely on their own. Was every German in Germany in those pictures? Remember those pictures of a million people marching in London against attacking Iraq, when people like you loved to remind us that fifty-nine million of us weren't there? Who are the "they" who didn't give two hoots? Are you including the babies and the toddlers in that? I don't recall the bombs making that discrimination either... Black and white is what you do with the broad brush. When you forget the inconvenient little details, such as the innocents slaughtered by the most unsmart bombing in history. But that's OK. It's convenient to set all moral considerations aside when you're four miles up, you drop a weapon of mass destruction and you can be out of the way before it can get you. Revel in the beauty of it. I seem to recall someone doing that, actually. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 11 Aug 15 - 04:11 PM On August 15th, 1945, Japan announced that it was surrendering. They signed the official surrender on September 2nd, 1945. I was in my early 'teens at the time, and my parents, my sisters, and I were taking a trip from Seattle to Vancouver, B.C. on August 15th. We heard the news on the car radio, and when we pulled into downtown Vancouver, people were literally dancing in the streets! Using the A-bomb undoubtedly shortened the war by several months, with hundreds of thousands of lives saved, both Japanese and American. AND—actually using the A-bomb made people think pretty cautiously about using it in future conflicts. A nuclear World War III, especially with ICBMs and H-bombs would have been short, would have resulted in the deaths of many millions, and would quite probably have left us with the kind of bleak world that has often been depicted in science fiction movies…. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 11 Aug 15 - 05:17 PM Well, Don, I'm normally with you on most things but not on this. No-one knows that fewer lives would have been saved had the bomb not been dropped. A decision to drop a nuclear bomb with the excuse of saving future lives is akin to playing God. In addition, the atom bomb was instrumental in triggering the Cold War with its insane nuclear arms race and decades-long stand-off between two stupid superpowers who fought proxy wars on a massive scale all over the planet. Millions of lives have been lost as a result of US foreign policy squaring up to Soviet hubris. You can call that a tenuous link if you like, but it's not as tenuous as saying that dropping big bombs saves lives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 11 Aug 15 - 06:47 PM I can't agree, Steve. I was a kid, but I remember at the time, there was a great deal of apprehension about the number of lives, both American and Japanese, that would be lost if the United States had to invade the Japanese home islands to end the war. And the Japanese high command was adamant about "fighting to the last man." No surrender! The kamikaze attacks were an indication of how determined the Japanese were. And the American naval and military forces, having to continue to extend its supply lines across the Pacific Ocean, and having already had to drive the Japanese forces back island by island, was getting pretty weary and worn out by then. Truman made the right decision to use the bomb and end the war as quickly as possible. It took hundreds of thousands of lives, but it also saved hundreds of thousands of lives and brought a long and tedious war to a quick end. And as to the subsequent stand-off between the Soviet Union—and not just the United States, remember—I think that the idea of MAD—Mutual Assured Destruction—kept the myriad brushfire wars from extending beyond a certain point. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 04:35 AM The kamikaze attacks were an indication of how determined the Japanese were And, now, suicide bombers are just part of the routine of conflict between peoples. Off topic - sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 04:42 AM A decision to drop a nuclear bomb with the excuse of saving future lives is akin to playing God. Does this God need an excuse Steve ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:05 AM ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Dave Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:24 AM Don, the invasion of Japan had it happened would have been an Allied invasion, not solely an American one. It is likely that my father, who had been serving in Burma, would have been part of it. And I still don't agree with the decision to use the bomb, especially the second one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Megan L Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:46 AM If people spend all their time arguing about the horrors of the past yet do not lift a finger to stop the horrors that are happening around them today are they really in the moral position to condemn the people of the past. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:05 AM "?" from Steve Your (rather surprising) reference to 'playing God'. I think the need for an excuse is relevant to the metaphor. One could take the view that the permanent members of the UN Securty Council are there because they can threaten to 'play God' with their nuclear arsenals. @ Megan L - I think the argument is relevant to horrors that are not happening around us today but might be if we don't review and revise the what it is acceptable for 'world leaders' to do. Not just relating to 'weapons of mass destruction' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 07:01 AM The God you say doesn't exist Stevie? Nice to see that you know more about the events than those who actually lived through them at the time, and who actually experienced the elation and relief that the war was finally over, all because the President of the United States had taken the decision to drop those bombs. " No-one knows that fewer lives would have been saved had the bomb not been dropped." We most certainly do. What on earth do you think would have happened had the bombs not been dropped? Fighting would have continued in China and in South East Asia, operations would have continued against the Japanese mainland including Curtis LeMay's B-29 bombing campaign. The 9th-10th March raid on Tokyo alone resulted in 100,000 deaths - the high estimate for deaths caused by the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki amount to 300,000 so Steve three nights similar to that on Tokyo and the death toll would have been as high. The two atomic bombs were dropped in August, Olympic was not due to commence until around the 1st November so there would have been far more than just three raids which logically leads to a highly probable assumption that the death toll on mainland Japan would have been far higher - and that Mr Shaw does not include the massive number of additional deaths that would have resulted once the invasion started. Please don't say the Japanese would have surrendered before that - you have no way of knowing that - Potsdam made sure of the stiffest resistance and even as it was the surrender articles agreed to had to be physically and forcibly protected from an attempted coup by junior officers who tried to destroy them - the Japanese would have fought and although they would have lost it would have been protracted, hard and bloody. Every slim advantage the Americans had going for them at Okinawa would have been reversed in Japan's favour on an attack on Kyushu. At Okinawa 1,300 ships were used, 368 were badly damaged and 28 vital large landing ships were sunk. To do that Japanese aircraft had to fly over 400 miles of water. Had Olympic gone ahead the Japåanese would have only had to have flown ~60 miles with land cover degrading allied radar performance while the Americans would have had to have flown the 400 miles (US Carriers by this stage were in poor shape - for a carrier to be fully effective it must be able to travel at full speed for extended periods - you cannot do that if your boilers need cleaning and the furnaces firing them need to be re-bricked). Off Kyushu as US troop transports and radar pickets are sunk the fewer and fewer troops you are able to land and keep supplied. The Japanese would have had somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 aircraft to face the invasion, 40 submarines, 250 midget submarines and around 800 kamikaze fast boats, by July before the bombs were dropped they had 916,828 military personnel on Kyushu - American estimates which MacArthur believed to be greatly exaggerated put enemy strength on the island at 350,000 (A 200% underestimation), by November there would have been more. Ah but Steve Shaw says there wouldn't have been any casualties - so he must be right then - DON'T THINK SO. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 07:19 AM Outside of broad speculation on militarily and international political reasoning, I see it as coming down to a lower value being placed on the lives of Japanese civilians versus USA citizens. I suspect if there were a few USA citizens on the ground at both sites at this time, these bombs would not have been used. Is this attitude not similar today in most areas of USA conflict? If so, what has been learned and what exactly has changed, beyond the bomb type? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 07:27 AM GUEST,Dave - 12 Aug 15 - 05:24 AM Can't really see how your father would have been involved, after all Slim's 14th Army already had a job to do fighting the Japanese in Burma - that would have continued to have been the case. Also there would have been the problem of actually getting troops there as every available transport would have been required to support the US forces carrying out the invasion. The invasion of the mainland of Japan did not rule out the use of the bomb. The Manhattan Project promised General Marshal that once Olympic was ready to be launched they would have 15 "Fat Boy" bombs available for him to use should that prove necessary ("Fat Boy" was the airburst bomb dropped on Hiroshima - airburst produced greater blast damage and less residual ground contamination) - with 650,000 attackers having to fight 4,355,500 defenders my guess is that at some point or other as US fatalities climbed it would have proved necessary to drop those bombs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 07:31 AM GUEST -12 Aug 15 - 07:19 AM Outside of broad speculation on militarily and international political reasoning, I see it as coming down to a lower value being placed on the lives of Japanese civilians versus USA citizens. I think that it is generally accepted and well established practice that when engaged in an all out war that a lower value is placed on the lives of the enemy vesus the lives of your own troops and population - generally accepteand well established for pretty compelling and very obvious reasons I would have thought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 07:53 AM ""I think that it is generally accepted and well established practice that when engaged in an all out war that a lower value is placed on the lives of the enemy vesus the lives of your own troops and population - generally accepteand well established for pretty compelling and very obvious reasons I would have thought."" So, why pretend it it is not so for all sides, sign agreements limiting war time activties, and talk "the high ground" to other countries about killing civilians, when most countries (including your own) are prepared to use whatever advantage they possess in wartime? Why not just be honest and admit that any target, military or civilian, will be directly or indirectly targeted in any conflict, with whatever tool exists to serve a "wartime interest" (like with the USA in Japan, Vietnam, and Iraq and like others using mustard gas in the Middle East)? All this talk about, " it will never happen again", rings hollow under that scenario-I find it strange that people repeat it, over and over without thinking, "of course it will happen again, if there is a wartine advantage". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:20 AM I think the main reason you don't bomb their civilians is to make it less likely that they will bomb your civilians. Another reason is that bombing their civilians probably means you are not bombing their military as much as you could be. A main tactical reason for attacking civilians is the one William the Conquerer adopted in 1066 - it can draw your enemy to the fight before they are ready. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:24 AM Now when your drones kill their civilians it brings their suicide bombers and gunmen who don't expect to survive down on your civilians |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:46 AM I refer you to the following two passages: 1: Wing Commander T.D. Weldon, a tutor in Moral Philosophy at Magdalen College Oxford [lecturing on "The Ethics of Bombing"]: " ... So therefore, it is not a question of ethics at all! War is not the opposite of peace, nor is it a corollary of it! War is a complete breakdown in civilization, so it shouldn't have "ethics" thrust upon it. Because that way lies danger; that way, war becomes acceptable! The means of death and destruction are immaterial, war was always war, the only difference today is the scale of it! So, when this war is finally over, the world should accept that there is no limit; there are no "Hague Rules of Combat" anymore! The worse war is, the more savage it becomes! When people understand this, and stop trying to limit it, then perhaps, we shall achieve lasting peace!" 2: International law did not protect civilians from bombardment from the sea, the ground, or the air: The 1923 Hague Draft Rules of Aerial Warfare was the first authoritative attempt to clarify and formulate a comprehensive code of conduct, but they were never adopted in legally binding terms. Growing awareness of the military potential of aircraft throughout the 1920s and 1930s ultimately proved too serious an obstacle to reaching an agreement. One of the main stumbling blocks was the inability to establish an acceptable definition of a legitimate military target under the new conditions of total war between industrialised states. Air Marshal Sir Robert Saundby summed up this conundrum nicely when he wrote: "It is generally agreed, for example, that the man who loads or fires a field-gun is a military target. So is the gun itself, and the ammunition dump which supplies it. So is the truck-driver who transports ammunition from the base to the dump. So -- in the last two World Wars -- was the man who transported weapons, ammunition, raw materials, etc., by sea. But are the weapons and war-like stores on their way from the factories to the bases, and the men who transport them, not also military targets? And what about weapons under construction in the factories, and the men who make them? Are they not also military targets? And if they are not, where do you draw the line? If they are military targets, are not the industrial areas and the services -- gas, electricity -- that keep industry going, also military targets? Or is it permissible to starve these civilian workers by blockade, or shell them if you can get at them, but not to bomb them from the air? This is surely a `reductio ad absurdum'." Factories making armaments and the transport bringing them to the battlefronts naturally were included in the category of legitimate targets once the means of attacking them were available. Consequently those civilians in them or dangerously close to them might just have to be equated with civilians in legitimately attacked places. Moreover, precedent was on the side of the air planners. Naval bombardment of ports and towns was an accepted act of war. It was even codified in Article 2 of the Convention on Naval Bombardment, signed at The Hague in 1907. Article 2 stipulated that a naval commander who used his ships' guns to destroy military objectives in an undefended port or town `incur[red] no responsibility for any unavoidable damage which may be caused by a bombardment under such circumstances'. The advent of air power merely increased the opportunity of reaching and destroying such targets. As to the points raised: "why pretend it it is not so for all sides" Who is pretending that it is the same for all sides? Examples please. "sign agreements limiting war time activities, and talk "the high ground" to other countries about killing civilians, when most countries (including your own) are prepared to use whatever advantage they possess in wartime?" Agreements have in the past been signed and honoured - oddly enough the one that springs foremost to mind concerns chemical and biological agents. Principle reason they were not used in the Second World War was because Hitler had actually faced gas attacks during the First World War. Churchill on the otherhand hadn't and was quite prepared to use them if necessary. As to the killing civilians bit - recent examples - Afghanistan ever hear of the exercise of "courageous restraint" where if in contact with the enemy there was any danger of causing civilian casualties action was to be broken off? Of course in a "all-out" wartime scenario such restraint would be difficult if not impossible to implement. "Why not just be honest and admit that any target, military or civilian, will be directly or indirectly targeted in any conflict, with whatever tool exists to serve a "wartime interest" Attaboy GUEST you are now getting towards what the Wing Commander above stated as being the reality. "All this talk about, " it will never happen again", rings hollow under that scenario-I find it strange that people repeat it, over and over without thinking, "of course it will happen again, if there is a wartine advantage". Of course it will happen again GUEST and nobody I know has ever thought any different. And remember GUEST should YOU ever become involved in any "all-out" war there is only one thing that is important - YOU must WIN IT. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 08:48 AM Steve Shaw - Date: 11 Aug 15 - 03:06 PM Was every German in Germany in those pictures?" Of course not Stevie, but there again where did I state that " every German in Germany" WAS in those pictures. Attention to detail Shaw, attention to detail. Try harder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 09:17 AM "Of course it will happen again GUEST and nobody I know has ever thought any different." Well, no need of polling "those you know", you realky dont really have to look very far here to see it-it's just a few posts down. Lol 10 Aug 15 - 01:29 PM, Bill D "What is important is that we learn that humans should NEVER resort to such measures again............" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 10:00 AM Missed this one earlier from Mr Red " Mr Red - 11 Aug 15 - 04:48 AM the BBC documentary last night on the "bomb" clearly stated the view that the Hiroshima bomb was dropped to demonstrate the fire power of the Allies because the war had no sight of any conclusion and was not going well for the Allies." It is wonderful to see clearly demonstrated what a factual grip those who make documentaries for the BBC have on reality. The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th August 1945 - AUGUST 1945 FFS - the end of the war was in sight albeit early-to-mid summer 1946 and things could not have been going any better for the allies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 12 Aug 15 - 10:48 AM Good point, GUEST 12 Aug 15 - 08:20 AM. Militarists keep claiming that acts of terror against civilians will cause their armies to surrender, but all experience tells us that the opposite will happen: the morale on both sides is boosted. Thus, apart from the tactics mentioned by that GUEST, a possible rationale of terrorism is to fuel and prolong the conflict. Oftentimes military leaders are afraid of peace, in which their importance is bound to diminish. Japanese leaders surrendered because they realized that they had no chance to win, or even to achieve an honorable peace. Deaths of civilians were rather seen as an incentive to continue fighting. Methods to speed up one's enemy's surrender and save lives do exist, but they are usually scorned by generals, because diplomats and real propaganda specialists must play the leading role, who must strive to understand the enemy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 12 Aug 15 - 11:30 AM Ehmmmm Grishka "Japanese leaders surrendered because they realized that they had no chance to win, or even to achieve an honorable peace." Japanese leaders surrendered because after the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki the Emperor ordered them to surrender and seek peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 12 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM "The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on the 6th August 1945 - AUGUST 1945 FFS - the end of the war was in sight albeit early-to-mid summer 1946 and things could not have been going any better for the allies." Any idea what the death toll would have been after another six to eight months bearing in mind that both sides would have sustained casualties? I doubt that it would have been much less,probably more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 03:25 PM Two more ethics-free reasons for not targeting civilians: 1a. You may lose the war and end up an international court 1b. You may get found out by human rights groups and end up in one of your own courts. 2. Your enemy's enemies may not want to be your friends. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Aug 15 - 03:35 PM Any idea what the death toll would have been after another six to eight months bearing in mind that both sides would have sustained casualties? No, I don't have any idea - and neither do you. So stop guessing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 12 Aug 15 - 04:07 PM "The practical question is this: "Is it immoral to kill civilians in war?" It is an issue of growing importance in the last 100 years because a century ago most people killed in wars were professionals. This has changed. At the beginning of the twentieth century only 10%-15% of those who died in war were civilians .By the end of the century over 75% of those killed in war were civilians." From the BBC: Whom can you fight? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 12 Aug 15 - 04:08 PM There were estimates at the time, and they were high. For both sides. Using the bomb quite probably saved more Japanese lives than it took, and most certainly lives of the Allied forces. Considering the "no surrender" policy of the Japanese, an invasion of Japan would have cost many lives on both sides--including many Japanese noncombatants (civilians). Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Derrick Date: 12 Aug 15 - 05:48 PM Greg, The question was directed to Teribus who posted the statement in quotes in a previous post. Like you I have no idea of the likely numbers and neither does he. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Greg F. Date: 12 Aug 15 - 06:24 PM Sorry, Derrick- got twisted round, which isn't difficult after reading Terribulous' usual stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Joe_F Date: 12 Aug 15 - 07:11 PM It is hard to guess how important the nuclear attacks were in influencing the decision of the Japanese leaders -- not altogether rational, and not all in agreement -- to surrender. A lot else was going on at the same time: the devastation of other cities, particularly Tokyo, by "conventional" bombing; the entry of the USSR into the war against Japan; and the general course of the war, which must have made it clear to any sane Japanese that it was lost. On the one hand, the Emperor's surrender speech made explicit reference to "a new and cruel weapon", and various military men, interviewed afterward, said it had been important. On the other hand, the Supreme Council did not bother to meet until 3 days after the Hiroshima attack, when it received the news of the USSR's invasion of Manchuria. News of Nagasaki arrived during the meeting and was barely taken notice of. My guess is that the nuclear attacks were helpful in giving the Japanese an opportunity to save face, but that the prospect of a Soviet invasion and a partition of the country (a la Germany) was the main consideration for the surrender itself. As to the motives on our side, one could go on & on. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Musket Date: 13 Aug 15 - 02:56 AM Found myself sitting with a coffee in the peace gardens in Sheffield yesterday. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:14 AM The GUEST of 12 Aug 15 - 03:25 PM seems to be the same one as before and hit the point again. (Please choose nicknames for easier reference.) More such reasons: 3) Even if you "win", you must be on your watch permanently (see Palestine), whereas a good peace makes for good business and wealth. 4) Your former enemy may one day be needed to fight a new common one, and may refuse. 5) Once the nationalistic mood has calmed down, your (the government's) internal opposition may blame you for ruining your country's reputation. 6) If you accuse other countries/regimes of atrocities, they can point back. 7) If you seek allies on grounds of common moral values, they will be skeptical. Etc. Among the few real winners of WWII were businesses in Japan and West Germany. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Mr Red Date: 13 Aug 15 - 04:28 AM If people spend all their time arguing about the horrors of the past yet do not lift a finger to stop the horrors that are happening around them today are they really in the moral position to condemn the people of the past. well said. But sadly there are those that talk and those that walk. The walkers are not here. We are all talkers. Some more than others. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,12 Aug 15 - 03:25 PM Date: 13 Aug 15 - 04:29 AM Yes, all those. Since it is on the same lines I will sneak in: 2b. Your friends may be reluctant to help you in your fight. But it is close to Grishka's 7 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Dave Date: 13 Aug 15 - 04:36 AM Todays enemies are tomorrows friends. And todays friends are tomorrows enemies. But if you show yourselves to be real bastards, then todays friends and todays enemies will unite against you tomorrow. This is the lesson of millennia of history. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 07:14 AM "Among the few real winners of WWII were businesses in Japan and West Germany." Lessons from the USA in WW2: get in late (after supplying the combatants), for later pay back. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:04 AM WW2, the good war |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:25 AM Source for "WW2, the good war": Global Research Globalresearch.ca (also under the domain name globalresearch.org) is the website of the Montreal-based non-profit The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) founded by Michel Chossudovsky. While many of Globalresearch's articles discuss legitimate humanitarian or environmental concerns, the site has a strong undercurrent of reality warping throughout its pages, especially in relation to taking its news from sources such as Russia Today RT[2] and Press TV.[3] Its view of science, the economy and geopolitics seems to be broadly conspiracist. Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong. RationalWiki |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST, ^*^ Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:00 AM Great site, GUEST 13 Aug 15 - 8:25 AM. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 11:11 AM Wiki? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM "Whenever someone makes a remarkable claim and cites Globalresearch, they are almost certainly wrong." Obviously a logical fallacy sands out in that statement. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:01 PM I've always regarded the dropping of 2 bombs of such magnitude on civilians as an act of incredible barbarism, which is why I framed the question as I did. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:18 PM Many posters have accepted that all out war is barbaric. I think that is why tactical/political/pragmatic and other 'not-ethical' reasons for not targeting civilians have been sought. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 03:23 PM Since many world leaders post as guests on Mudcat, to protect their identity, this site is a good gauge of global thinking as to the logic of targeting civilians in war. ;), of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:01 PM Agreed, Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:05 PM The complete argument runs as follows: Even if one could accept that war goals justify any loss of life, bombings of Tokyo and Dresden type would not be acceptable, because they did not serve those goals at all. Hiroshima might qualify as a demonstration of new technology, but that could have been had equally convincing with much less damage. As for the real goals, we can only speculate. Revenge must have been among them. I personally think that military leaders - and politicians in their vicinity - inevitably have a tendency to fuel and prolong conflicts. Military engineers and scientist may also enjoy their roles. Barbaric, indeed, and not just all-out (defensive) war. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:21 PM This is the nature of the enemy that the Allies had to deal with in the Pacific region: CLICKY #1. And how they treated their prisoners, both civilian and military. I had a cousin who was in the Marine Corps during WWII, stationed in the Philippines. He was captured, and was forced to go, with thousands of other military personnel and civilians, on what became known as the Bataan Death March: CLICKY #2. He managed to survive, but he was one of the few. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 05:40 PM An interesting article, with a bibliography and footnotes on the information sources from the period. America's Reaction to the Atomic Bombings by Diana S |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 15 - 06:02 PM U.S. Congressional Representative Dana Rohrabacher described and tried to explain the horrors and brutality the prisoners experienced on the march: They were beaten, and they were starved as they marched. Those who fell were bayoneted. Some of those who fell were beheaded by Japanese officers who were practicing with their samurai swords from horseback. The Japanese culture at that time reflected the view that any warrior who surrendered had no honor; thus was not to be treated like a human being. Thus they were not committing crimes against human beings.[...] The Japanese soldiers at that time [...] felt they were dealing with subhumans and animals.That was the attitude of the Japanese military machine prior to and during WWII. It took the Hiroshima A-bomb, and finally, the Nagasaki bomb to convince them that they had lost the war. The Japanese surrendered at that point, thereby saving the lives of hundreds of thousands, both Allied military and Japanese, military and civilian. One can "Monday morning quarterback" until hell freezes over, but that doesn't change the facts. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Aug 15 - 07:03 PM But Don, surely you're not trying to make the argument that the viciousness of the Japanese justified even more viciousness on our part. It isn't a competition, you do something very bad so I'll do something worse and to hell with the morals, is it? I note also that those people in this thread who disagree with me that there is little evidence that the bombs saved lives are at least being measured. It's a very tough matter, is this. I don't know whether doing things differently, that is by using the bomb in a more threatening rather than destructive mode, or not at all, would have cost more lives. Likewise, the people who express certainty that the bomb saved lives in the long run are deluded. Maybe the bomb did, maybe it didn't. The bomb's legacy was the Cold War, lest we forget, decades of stand-off that were far from victim-free. The one person expressing certainty in this thread, Teribus, is also the prime mover in getting us to adhere strictly to his personal versions of historical fact. Odd, then, that he can say that in the one breath yet resort to unjustified extrapolation, speculation even, in the next. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 07:20 PM Don F. Why punish innocent civilians for the crimes of the military? Should innocent USA citizens be slaughtered for the pain and suffering their military dished out on innocent civilians with napalm abd bombs in Vietbam? Should you be punished for the dastardly crimes of murders? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Aug 15 - 07:25 PM You need to answer that, Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:06 PM Steve, the point was not to prove that we could be more vicious than the Japanese, the aim was to end the war quickly and prevent the enormous cost in lives of both allied troops and Japanese military and civilians. If we had had to invade the Japanese home islands, the war could have stretched out to many more months, if not years, with enormous cost in lives on both sides, far greater than that cause by the A-bombs. Do you think for one moment that if the Japanese had had the A-bomb, they wouldn't have use it, especially all along the American western seaboard: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, and, yes, Vancouver, B.C. as well? Hitler was close enough to having a workable A-bomb, complete with V-2s that could reach London easily, and an as yet untested ICBM, the A-9 A-10 (two stage) that if the war in Europe had dragged on for another few months, things could have got very nasty indeed, and this would be a vastly different world today. It wasn't a question of who could out-vicious who, it was a matter of bringing a long, bloody war to a quick end. And Guest, the Vietnam war is an entirely different issue with different dynamics—and I'm not going to get tangled up in that! Sorry. Not going to play. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:34 PM Not a game to play, Don. Just trying to give you a reality check;) It seems it passed you by. Oh well. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:39 PM Guest's moral points were very good ones, Don. Why the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians? We don't like it when Israel does it in Gaza and we don't like it when terrorists plant bombs in pubs or on underground trains. If you can justify the use of those two bombs you have to address that. And it's no good arguing that they did it or might have done it. If you win a war in spite of moral considerations you're very unlikely to have won hearts and minds. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:50 PM In Vietnam, there was considerable crossover between combatants and "innocent civilians." A lot of what was going on in Vietnam amounted to guerilla warfare. A far different kind of conflict than WWII. It's disingenuous to try to draw moral equivalents. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Aug 15 - 08:59 PM It seems to me that people are pointing at one atrocity to justify another as if one cancelled out the other, when in fact it only goes to prove that they are no different - only one side won (or had bigger and better clubs) - seems important to some people. The Japanese regime was a brutal militaristic one - no argument on that one. Does that justify the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians and condemning generations to possible deformities, genetic defects and slow, agonizing deaths? not in my book. The inventor of the bomb, J Robert Oppenheimer described its use as "a tragic mistake on an already defeated enemy" A pilot who took part in the raid, Claude Robert Eatherly, became consumed by guilt, first involving himself in speaking to pacifist groups and eventually attempted suicide. Rather than learning from the use, necessary or otherwise, of these obscene weapons, the world entered into an arms race, placing my generation, and the generation that followed under a massive shadow - I remember it being declared that the nuclear clock had now reached one minute to midnight at one stage - I was still in my twenties. By the mid-sixties there was talk of "nuking" Vietamese peasants "back to the Stone Age" Weapons of mass destruction have moved on from being "defensive" and are now commodities to be sold by "those who value freedom" to those who suppress that freedom - Israel attempted to assist apartheid South Africa to become a nuclear threat. It seems we have learned nothing in the intervening years. I've just got back from a few days of watching films in Dublin - the first of those was a remarkable documentary on a West Cork doctor, Aiden McCarthy, who became a medical officer in the British army during the war. Having served at Dunkirk and having earned the George Cross for saving lives, he volunteered to serve in Asia, was captured by the Japanese at Singapore and was a prisoner for four years as a P.O.W. He ended up being shipped to Nagasaki, where he and some of his fellow prisoners narrowly escaped death when the bomb was dropped. Despite his appalling experiences at the hands of the Japanese, and in spite of the fact that their captors had decided to execute them all, McCarthy and others survived the blast - thanks largely to the mass grave they had been forced to dig for themselves. He found himself the senior officer in the camp and the camp commandant presented him with his military sword as a gesture of gratitude for having saved the lives of the surviving troops at the camp when the newly-released Australians attempted to tear them apart. That, to me, seems a breathtaking example of humanity that is sadly lacking in discussions of war and "our enemies". Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 13 Aug 15 - 09:10 PM It seems to me that people are pointing at one atrocity to justify another as if one cancelled out the other, when in fact it only goes to prove that they are no different - only one side won (or had bigger and better clubs)... Sadly, that has become the theme of the thread. Well said Jim, again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Donuel Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:21 PM This is also the week when the Fukashima nuclear plant is starting back up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:34 PM When you are making your moral judgments and assigning blame, don't forget to take into consideration who started the conflict in the first place. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 13 Aug 15 - 10:41 PM We don't like it when Israel does it in Gaza Israel, unlike Hamas does not target civilians and to say that it does is simply another of your antisemitic canards. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Don Firth Date: 14 Aug 15 - 01:29 AM The following is an excerpt from a long article on the BBC website: CLICKY. Thanks to the work of Japanese historians, we now know much more about Japanese plans in the summer of 1945. Japan had no intention of surrendering. It had husbanded over 8,000 aircraft, many of them Kamikazes, hundreds of explosive-packed suicide boats, and over two million well equipped regular soldiers, backed by a huge citizen's militia. When the Americans landed, the Japanese intended to hit them with everything they had, to impose on them casualties that might break their will. If this did not do it, then the remnants of the army and the militias would fight on as guerrillas, protected by the mountains and by the civilian population.Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 14 Aug 15 - 02:56 AM One thing is the demonstration of superior military technology, the other thing is wiping out cities like Nagasaki, Tokyo, and Dresden. "The others were even worse" is no excuse at all, let alone a justification. We must face the fact that all things military are governed by ancient and obscure instincts, similarly to sex, religion, punishment, and many other aspects of human life. We must try to control those instincts, which cannot be done by pretending they did not exist and everything were rational. The ideas about moral values themselves have changed many times in the decades since 1945. The wish to glory in the past of "our people" is another such instinct, easily exploited by leaders who prepare future disasters and are responsible for present ones. We had better be proud only of our personal achievements, ashamed only of our personal failures, and on our guard against propagandists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 15 - 02:56 AM The bomb's legacy was the Cold War, lest we forget, decades of stand-off that were far from victim-free. Steve - the possibility of making a nuclear bomb was well known by the scientists and military of several countries, especially the Soviet Union. Germany was well on its way to making one. The cold war would have happened anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 15 - 03:10 AM I think that if tribe A was living in its own valley and tribe B over the hill attacked and starting killing tribe A with the aim of taking over then tribe A would retaliate with everything it had. Have we progressed - if the 'tribes' are big enough that no 'police force' can hold one in check ? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Aug 15 - 03:52 AM "Israel, unlike Hamas does not target civilians" It has been calculated (by The Washington Institute) that %72 of casualties who have perished in Gaza have been civilians - all of head-colds, no doubt! Not only, "my weapons are more peaceful than your weapons" but now they are more discriminating. I note that one of the up-and-coming industries in Israel is the manufacture and sale of drones. Condemning the use of weapons is not Antisemitic, but associating the use of those weapons with the Jewish people is, Bruce. "don't forget to take into consideration who started the conflict in the first place" "He hit me first sir", you mean? One giant step back into the schoolyard, it would appear, Don. "I think that if tribe A was living in its own valley and tribe" If it was ordinary members of the tribe who started wars, you might have a point - they are the ones exclusively conscripted to go off and kill each other - often under the threat of being clubbed to death by them in charge. We are all warriors - my arse!! I've never felt like killing anybody in my life (not even a couple of Mudcatters I could name) and I've never been in the company anybody who has. Mass killing on this planet is a manipulated exercise, invariably for profit and power (two sides of the same coin). Interesting to read over the last few days that on several occasions, the Japanese leaders have been booed down at Hiroshima/Nagasaki commemoration ceremonies for having renaged on promises to disassociate Japan from militarism. And the beat goes on - it would seem. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Aug 15 - 05:20 AM Good stuff again, Jim. And you have more patience than I have with the irritating and cowardly Guest troll. One fine day the owners of this site will see the light and make everyone have a unique moniker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 14 Aug 15 - 05:44 AM GUEST,Derrick - 12 Aug 15 - 12:24 PM The top estimated number of fatalities was in the region of 1 million US dead plus somewhere between 5 to 10 million Japanese dead. Those were the figures worked out at the time and given to the US Secretary of War. It was on studies and information such as this made at the time by those involved that the decision to use the atomic bombs available in August. So Guest Derrick I am not guessing, merely using the documented and well recorded information available on the matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Steve Shaw Date: 14 Aug 15 - 05:52 AM Stop shifting the goalposts. You ARE guessing when you come up with your what-if casualty numbers had the bombs not been used, or used in a threatening rather than a destructive manner. Historical fact is one thing. Unsupportable conjecture is entirely another. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:02 AM "I've just got back from a few days of watching films in Dublin - the first of those was a remarkable documentary on a West Cork doctor, Aiden McCarthy, who became a medical officer in the British army during the war. Having served at Dunkirk and having earned the George Cross for saving lives, he volunteered to serve in Asia, was captured by the Japanese at Singapore and was a prisoner for four years as a P.O.W. He ended up being shipped to Nagasaki, where he and some of his fellow prisoners narrowly escaped death when the bomb was dropped. Despite his appalling experiences at the hands of the Japanese, and in spite of the fact that their captors had decided to execute them all, McCarthy and others survived the blast - thanks largely to the mass grave they had been forced to dig for themselves. He found himself the senior officer in the camp and the camp commandant presented him with his military sword as a gesture of gratitude for having saved the lives of the surviving troops at the camp when the newly-released Australians attempted to tear them apart. That, to me, seems a breathtaking example of humanity that is sadly lacking in discussions of war and "our enemies". Jim Carroll" So Jim are you telling us that had the bomb not been dropped that Camp Commandant could very well have used that self same sword to chop the good Doctor's head off as ordered? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:19 AM No guessing on my part Steve - "study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley" - Source: page 340 of the book written in 1999 by Richard B. Frank, entitled "Downfall": The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Random House. ISBN 978-0-679-41424-7. The report and the study carried out for Stimson by William Shockley is a historical fact Steve, whether you like it or not. However as an exercise in logic you have two vastly different types of bomb and both are prototypes never been used in anger. Care to explain how they could have been used in a threatening non-destructive way? Once you have dropped them, if they detonate, what are you going to do then? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:19 AM "So Jim are you telling us that had the bomb not been dropped that Camp Commandant could very well have used that self same sword to chop the good Doctor's head off as ordered?" Did I say that - don't think I did, in fact, I made a point of describing the treatment meted out by the Japanese military - keep up. I was pointing out that despite the treatment received at the hands of the Japanese, McCarthy's humanity rose above it and he managed to remain a human being - unlike some here who have never experienced what he did. "Wing Commander T.D. Weldon, a tutor in Moral Philosophy at Magdalen College Oxford [lecturing on "The Ethics of Bombing"]:" Do you really draw on the opinions of militarists for your moral philosophy - unbelievable, but it does explain a lot!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:26 AM Sorry Jim but I thought you wrote that the Japanese had already decided to execute the prisoners, that the thing that saved them was the fact that they were protected from the blast of the bomb due to the fact that they were in the act of digging their own mass grave. I would therefore think it not only likely but highly probable that had the bomb not been dropped those POWs would have been executed as ordered - don't you? - or did you think that the Camp Commandant was only kidding when he ordered the prisoners to dig their own grave? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:39 AM "Sorry Jim but I thought you wrote that the Japanese had already decided to execute the prisoners," I did - what's your point? Whatever the Japanese military men were McCarthy remained a compassionate human being. Any issue I have is with militarism and bestiality in any shape or form, not with any particular race, creed or colour off such. You appear to have a blind-spot where compassion and humanity are concerned. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST,4 Aug 15 - 02:56 AM Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:41 AM Playing the 'I am posting under my own name' card and calling anonymous GUESTs who disagree over matters of fact 'cowardly trolls' comes over as pompus. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Teribus Date: 14 Aug 15 - 06:45 AM "Wing Commander T.D. Weldon, a tutor in Moral Philosophy at Magdalen College Oxford" Oh by the way Jim I think Harry Weldon was a Lecturer at Magdalen College Oxford long before he joined up to serve in the RAF. Born - 5th December 1896 Won a scholarship to read literae humaniores at Magdalen College, Oxford, which he postponed to become an officer in the Royal Field Artillery in 1915. He spent World War I in France and Belgium, rising to acting captain, being wounded and winning the Military Cross and bar. Finally went to Oxford in 1919 and graduated with a first class degree in 1921. Elected a fellow and philosophy tutor at his college in 1923 Served as Rhodes travelling fellow in 1930. Became a temporary civil servant in 1939. Then joined the RAF in 1942 serving as Personal Staff Officer to Arthur Harris in RAF Bomber Command at High Wycombe from 1942 to 1945. He died from cerebral hemorrhage in 1958. So Jim out of his 62 years on this earth he spent a total of 6 years serving in the armed forces in time of war and 33 years as an academic - So not much of a militarist after all then eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Aug 15 - 07:30 AM "Oh by the way Jim I think Harry Weldon was a Lecturer at Magdalen College Oxford long before he joined up to serve in the RAF." Obviously had military inclinations then Doesn't make that much difference, does it - some people might be miltaristically inclined (this feller seems to prefer to be identified as such - "Wing Commander T.D. Weldon,") - most human beings aren't. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: GUEST Date: 14 Aug 15 - 07:36 AM Playing the 'I am posting under my own name' card and calling anonymous GUESTs who disagree over matters of fact 'cowardly trolls' comes over as pompus. You must be new here to have only just recognized the pomposity emanating from this poster and his fellow travellers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Aug 15 - 07:45 AM " who disagree over matters of fact " No fact - just opinion -and many "guests", notebly yourself, scurry back under their bridge when challenged Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: One Giant Step for Mankind - or what? From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Aug 15 - 08:07 AM Why on earth must people opt for slinging accusations from the shadows rather than actually confronting things they don't agree with? 'Guest" seems to have taken the place of the tried and trusted "anon" in these non-arguments. Jim Carroll |
