BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Aug 05 - 09:24 AM

I took it that dianavan's point was that there were all kinds of consequences of a historical event like Hiroshima, and some people alive today wouldn't have been born if it hadn't happened and some people who weren't born would have been born, and would have been alive today.

For all artbrooks (for example) knows he or she wouldn't have been born if Hitler hadn't come to power, and the second world war hadn't taken place, since his or her parents would likely never have met each other. I don't think that'd be a good reason from thinking that on balance Hitler was a good thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 08 Aug 05 - 07:14 AM

Dianavan,

Sorry to hear about your brother. However, without knowing more, it seems a little far-fetched to suggest that every person who was in the pacific in late 1945 and who subsequently had a stillborn child was affected by the bombs. People in the armed forces would have handled toxic substances almost every day and, of course, stillbirths occur in nature. Not that that would have been any consolation to your poor parents.

I don't want to decry your family's experience but I wonder if it is really helpful to be seen to be claiming that one's family may have been victims when we already have such hard information on those who most definitely were.

Once again, sorry about your brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Aug 05 - 06:34 AM

My mother was born in December of 1946. She was the first child of a man (my grandfather)who was in the Pacific until late 1945. I never heard from anyone that there was a stillborn child. Then again, knowing what I do working in a radiation area (fluroscope), male gametes respawn in about a month, therefore the radiation probably only really affected those who were there in August, went home in August and "got some." Those were probably the children who were stillborn.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Aug 05 - 12:41 AM

I'm glad you're here, too, art. Many of the children who were born after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were stillborn, including my older brother. Many of my friends that were born in '47 were actually the second child. The first child was often stillborn. My father was also in the Pacific. I've always wondered how far that radiation might have drifted.

I've tried to find the exact number of miscarriages following the bomb but have been unable to find exact statistics.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 07:47 PM

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. I was born just about nine months after my father returned from the Pacific, and probably wouldn't have been if the bomb hadn't been dropped. Personally, I enjoy being here.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,G
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 11:44 AM

Point well taken, Guest, Chris B., and what you go onto say is true.
We have more worry today regarding nuclear weapons than ever before.

To go on and on about the moral values of what happened 60 years ago is an exercise in futility. This is today and maybe we should be expending our efforts towards alerting everyone to write, perhaps protest. Would not a 30 million person march capture the attention of some?

With regards to 60 years ago, while not involved for many reasons, I firmly believe that dropping the 'bomb' was the correct thing to do at the time. I see where there are some who protest that are not really aware of the chain of events thalt led up to this. The bombing of Nagasaki was NOT a test. A second test had alread taken place on an Atoll in the Pacific ocean.

Hurl your barbs at me as opposed to a bunch of old dead men. And don't bother the pilot of the Enola Gay who is still living somewhere in Ohio. I am sad but I am not ashamed and I pray the 3rd device, no matter what its' size and scope, is never, ever used against humanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Halyburton
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 10:56 AM

Tam,

One problem I have with a country to get rid of it's nuclear arsenal is one simple, yet somewhat funny belief I hold. What if aliens attack and we only have conventional weapons :) And eventually, I believe the fusion bombs we have will one day might start a fusion plant in space.

In more seriousness, if someone attacks my nation (the U.S.) with biological, chemical or radiological means, I believe since the use of WMDs were used, we have all right to retaliate to those countries that harbor those that used the weapons by using the WMDs we have (aka nukes). Yes, that might seem a bit Hammurabi of me, an eye for an eye, but when you use such weapons on a civilian populace, they must think long and hard about the consequences. And on this point, I'm not very moderate.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 06:53 AM

Gentlemen Just be gratefull that you are not speaking German or Japanese in 2005...

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Tam the man
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 06:47 AM

I'm Sorry about that, I just want to get rid on Nuclear weapons from the world, but that is my opinon, and you don't have to agree with it.

Let's not argue, let's agree to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 06:45 AM

"Is it not difficult some 60 years later to offer logical, fact based opinions on what was and what wasn't?"

Probably easier in fact 60 years after than it would have been at the time. And the passage of time in no way makes the issues irrelevant.

And the central issue as I see it is this: if Hiroshima can be accepted as a justifiable and moral act, on the grounds that on balance it caused less suffering than it prevented, that means that, on these same grounds, it would be possible to justify absolutely anything.

It may well be true that most people do believe that - but if that is so, they should accept that there is no fundamental moral gulf between them and those who would justify terrorism on any scale. Just a disagreement about a kind of arithmetical evaluation of consequences.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Tam the man
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 06:43 AM

I'm Sorry I can't Justify Pearl Harbor, But can the Americans Justify dropping bombs on Hirsima and Nikasaki

Tam

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 05:59 AM

CarolC you can read about the choice here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 05:48 AM

Guest G,

I think you're introducing a different subject here. Yes, 9/11 was awful, but it wasn't on 'our' soil, it was on yours. Of course, it has implications for all of us which we are all still living with but Hiroshima and Nagasaki had different implications for the entire world.

Even nowadays, there is less chance of terrorists using nuclear weapons than there is of national governments using them and if governments don't get serious about disarmament and preventing proliferation there is a continuing danger of the bomb being used again.

This is not to minimise the implications of other forms of terrorism, but the nuclear question doesn't go away just because other questions come up.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,JTS
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 02:54 AM

It seems that The USAF thinks the targets were chosen partly for military value but mostly because they has not been bombed yet. "For maximum psychological effect on the Japanese Government."

https://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/abomb.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Aug 05 - 02:04 AM

I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children.

He [Stimson] and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one...

--from Dave (tam)'s Truman quote.

So if that was the plan, why did they drop the bombs on so many civilians?

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,G
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 08:57 PM

Is it not difficult some 60 years later to offer logical, fact based opinions on what was and what wasn't?

Most can only read the History books (Japans' books are very closely edited) Blogs, rumors, the writngs of those who have decided what the scenario was way after the fact and those who either like America or dislike America. There is something there for everybody and one only has to read that which he agrees with.

For me, to still be concerned about the World Trade Center, which was on our soil and was very recent, is the thing that we should all be thinking about. In this era of science and high tech, there are still 1100+ U.S. Citizens whose remains were never found, even with the miniscule requirement for DNA identification.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 08:25 PM

The argument that the bombing of Hiroshima was justified on the grounds that it is claimed that on a balance of probabilities it caused less suffering than would otherwise have occurred in a continuing war does involve a certain logic.

But it is a logic that has some very disturbing implications. It is a logic that says that, in certain circumstances, it is justifiable to do anything, without any limits whatsoever. The only thing that matters, in the last analysis, is that the ultimate good effects envisaged will outweigh the present suffering caused. And the people who have to make that judgement are those who carry the actions involved.

Before we accept that logic we should recognise that it is a logic shared with the people who engineered the atrocities associated with Al Qaeda, and even with the architects of the Holocaust.

If we believe Hiroshima was justifiable on those grounds, our argument with those kinds of people is reduced to one about weighing good and evil effects in the balance; and while that is an important argument, underlying it is a shared understanding of ethics, which is, if the sums work out right, there is absolutely nothing which is ruled out.

..................
As for Nagasaki, that wasn't anything to do with ending the war, it was essentially just a way of testing a different type of atom bomb. Even on the kind of logic I mentioned just now, it was unjustifiable, and should be recognised as a war crime in every sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 07:08 PM

Halyburton

I haven't read 'Debt of Honor' so you have me at a disadvantage. I don't, however, lie awake at night worrying about Japan (or Germany) in the 21st century. And I don't necessarily 'agree with' the use of the bomb - I just don't see how it could have been avoided. That doesn't mean I have to like it. Hard choices in hard times.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Halyburton
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 06:26 PM

Chris B, I have the impression that you think that I do not agree with the use of the atom bomb. That is far from the truth. The past is the past, we learn from what was done, try not to repeat mistakes and move forward. We learn from the past, but noone should dwell on it. There are thousands of "what-if's." Perhaps even thousands of millions. The atomic age was bound to spring forth, and as Truman wrote, he (as I) is thankful that we (America) discovered it first. Nazi Germany, devoid of moral backing, would have used no restraint. Nor would Stalinist Russia. A man that can kill 12 million of his own people wouldn't have hesitated to use the bomb first on Germany then on his allies.

There's an interesting thing about today, we think about nuclear weapons. Who owns them, who wants them, and who will not show restraint and use them. Is there any wonder we (Western nations) try to control them worldwide? Is there any wonder the U.S. still occupies Japan and probably will for another 40 years? Not to mention occupation in Germany. I'm sure the revisionist history the children of those countries speak not of their atrocities, but of the horrors of American occupation. I may not totally agree with current events in Iraq (I do favor Afghanistan), I do believe in occupation in Japan and Germany. Especially Japan. I fear one day, the U.S. will turn a blind eye to that island nation and will be sadly mistaken (ok, maybe I've read "Debt of Honor" too much).

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 03:17 PM

speculation, opinion, evidence. hot air, a huge blast of it.

How very true, Freda, how very true. The worrying thing is that you seem to regard your expressed opinion as something other than just another example of speculation, opinion, evidence. hot air, a huge blast of it.


This ground has been covered ere now on Mudcat. I'd rather point you all in the direction of this than rehash previously voiced arguments again.

When it comes down to it, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, for better or worse, happened. You can't unmake them. Were they necessary? Could they have been avoided?

The only question that really matters is can we make sure that this never need happen again?

I hope so. Sometimes I wonder about the rest of you...

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 02:52 PM

Here is one extract from President Trumans personal diary; it speaks volumes about the issue and makes nonsense of all the accusations written here. WWII bombing runs involved destroying factories, railways and the workers who produced or supported manufacturing military equipment.

7/25/45 Diary Entry:

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

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

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

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

[Privately, Truman later expressed misgivings about the mass killing of civilians in Hiroshima]


[7/26/45: The U.S., Great Britain, and China issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called for Japan's "unconditional surrender". It made no reference to the future status of the Emperor, Russia's secret agreement to declare war on Japan, or the atomic bomb. It was rejected by Japan's Prime Minister Suzuki.]

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 02:43 PM

I think I see the point you are trying to make, but I can't say I agree. War is certainly an inhuman business (or perhaps all too human a business), but if we accept that there is no humanity in it, or that humanitarian questions have no place, then we have no moral framework by which to judge the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, or Lt. William Calley (to name but a few).

My point was not to suggest that the end always justifies the means in wartime but that in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the decision to use the bomb needs to be understood in the context of the time. That is not to underestimate the awfulness of what happened or its consequences. Truman had a choice to make and I am not prepared to condemn him for it from the safe distance of 60 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Halyburton
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 01:44 PM

Chris B, nor was I... Read the speech at the bottom. It gives an insite into the person who personally dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. Again, what he says, "...there is no humanity in warfare" is the quote I was wanting to point out. Not the actual plane that delivered the device of mass destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 12:19 PM

Halyburton,

When I spoke about remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki, preserving the aeroplane that dropped the first bomb as an exhibit for planespotters wasn't what I was talking about.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Halyburton
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 11:34 AM

The following quote comes from Brigadier General Paul W. Tibbits, which I find interesting...

"The Enola Gay has become a symbol to different groups for one reason or another. I suggest that she be preserved and given her place in the context of the times in which she flew. For decades she has been relegated to a storage facility. Her place in history has been dealt with unfairly by those who decry the inhumanity of her August 6th mission. Ladies and gentlemen, there is no humanity in warfare. The job of the combatants, the families, the diplomats, and factory workers is to win. All had a role in that "all out" fight."

"...there is no humanity in warfare" speaks volumes. His speech, quoted here suggests pretty much in summary, he had a job, the President made a decision, he carried it out and he believes it was the right decision. He also says look forward. What's done is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 10:07 AM

About 20-25 years ago I was active in CND at Sussex University and I was as ready as anyone to condemn the USA, especially during the Reagan years. And I don't think anyone with any sense can regard the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as anything other than horrific. But...

There's a lot of 20-20 hindsight being expressed here. I don't think I would have acted differently if I had been Truman. Yes, the attacks cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives but by the end of the war millions of innocent lives had already been lost (including some 15 million in China under Japanese occupation).

I don't doubt that Truman would have been aware of the implications of his decision. How much he cared I can't say.

However, I do feel that by the time of the attacks Truman's chief responsibility was to end the war with as little loss of American and allied lives as possible. The Japanese government had chosen to take their country to war (initially against China, which is when World War 2 really began)and it is they, in my view, who bear the brunt of responsibility for the consequences for the Japanese people - not the Americans.

And while it's an awful thing to say, perhaps the attacks were a necessary lesson for the rest of the world in how destructive another world war would be. If the attacks hadn't taken place and at least been perceived to have been the blow that finally ended the war, it's quite likely in my view that either the US or the Soviet Union would have been tempted to use the bomb in a subsequent war, such as Korea- perhaps in the mistaken view that the bomb could have been used like any other weapon. The perception of the bomb as an ultimate weapon, whose use was to be avoided at all costs, stemmed from the evidence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - in other words, what the bomb could really do to real people.

Much of the subsequent criticism of Truman's decision stems from the view that the attacks were intended as a lesson to Stalin and, as a result, they led to the Cold War. There may be an element of truth in that but I don't believe that Stalin's attitude to Poland and Eastern Europe (for instance) would have been significantly different if the bomb had not been used on Japan. The Cold War had much deeper roots than that.

There are, of course, lots of 'what if's. What if the bomb had not been used? Would Japan have surrendered or would elements in its armed forces have forced the country to fight to the death? This would have seemed an unacceptably high probability to the Americans at the time, especially after the experience of Okinawa, where civilians committed suicide in huge numbers because they had been indoctrinated to believe an American occupation would be worse.

If Japan had surrendered first, would the bomb have been used to end the war against Germany? Or would it have been considered less acceptable to use it against europeans (I personally think that is quite likely)?

If Truman had waited, or offered Japan terms sooner, would the war have ended without an invasion or the use of the bomb? Maybe, but by 1945 the one thing the allies were all united on was the demand for unconditional surrender. A negotiated peace on any other terms was never likely to be an option in the context of the time.

It should also not be forgotten that the use of the bomb was a huge gamble. It was by no means certain that the devices would both work (especially as they were both of different designs) and there had only been one solitary test of a live bomb before the attack on Hiroshima. These days it would be unthinkable for a revolutionary new weapon to be deployed strategically with so little testing. The fact is, no-one really would have known what was going to happen at the time. Apparently the US only had three bombs ready for use. If Japan had decided to fight on it would have been back to square one with the invasion.

Yes, the US has done plenty of things both before and since World War 2 that can and should be condemned and as I said at the beginning, no reasonable person can regard Hiroshima and Nagasaki with anything other that the most profound horror and sorrow. It was a cataclysmic end to a cataclysmic war, and one in which in a few short years saw mankinds ability to inflict suffering upon itself progress (if that's the right word) in ways that could not have been imagined before. But in the end, I doubt that I would have made a different decision: to launch a huge and costly invasion or to pin one's hopes on two more air raids at the end of a war that had already seen millions of people die as a result of aerial bombardment?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki must be remembered and never repeated and in my view, the case for nuclear disarmament is as strong now as it was 25 years ago. If we want to honour the memory of all the innocent people who died in World War 2, whether from Nazi atrocities, starvation and forced labour in Japanese prison camps, allied incendiary attacks or the atomic bomb, we need to remember the attacks as a lesson for all of us. To do anything less would be an atrocity.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,G
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 09:32 AM

..........or Pearl Harbor for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,G
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 09:30 AM

Tam, although it happens, no one should be upset by another here. I am aware that Japan did not attack Pearl Harbor with an Atomic device.
Was that due to the lack of availability?

In 40 years, I have yet to be presented with any arguement that would even begin to justify Pear Harbor.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Tam the man
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 08:21 AM

If I have upset anyone, then I'm sorry.

please remeber this is my opinon, I respct you're views, well try to I hope that you can respect mine.

Tam

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Tam the man
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 07:48 AM

There's quite a lot of things that America has done along with other countries in the world that we all should say sorry for but we don't.

So let's live in Peace, And as for Peral Harbor, it was never bombed by a Atomic Bomb.

Tam

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: NH Dave
Date: 06 Aug 05 - 07:04 AM

Peace, it is my understanding that Japan attacked the US because America was making it difficult to obtain oil and other raw materials for manufacturing. They also thought that it they could finish the inevitable war, that stemmed from their attack, in a year or so they could wind up victorious, but if the war dragged on much past this period of time, the US could redirect its manufacturing might into building war materials, they would lose the war.

    Initially they enjoyed great success, with the fall of the Phillipines, and their capture of many of the Pacific islands, almost all the way to Australia. When we were able to supply and reinforce MacArthur with war materials and several divisions of Marines to spearhead the island hopping campaign, it spelled the beginning of the end for Japan, and some of their strategists had predicted this very situation. Each of these islands became a major battle, often lasting for weeks, and sometimes months, but we did prevail in the South Pacific, to the detriment of the Japanese dream of an entire mega-community stretching from Japan to Malaya. The loss of one of their key strategists when his aircraft was shot down by US aircraft deprived them of a rational approach to winning the war.

    We probably would not have been so hard on the Japanese forces had they declared war on us before they began the attack on Pearl Harbor, or treated our POWs in a humane manner, and routinely murdered prisoners because they were too much bother to feed and guard. This casual flaunting of the Geneva Conventions on Land Warfare, was a main reason why we held speedy trials for the worst of the offenders, and hanged those found guilty of war crimes as an example to others.

    By and large, our troops observed the standards of care for POWs mandated by the Geneva Convention, dealing with those who surrendered; although this observance slacked off markedly after the massacre of unarmed US soldiers in either Belgium or western France. In the Pacific campaign we would gladly taken prisoners, had the opportunity afforded itself, but the Japanese brainwashed their soldiers and the civilians under their rule that we would murder them out of hand, that many chose suicide rather that take their chances with the Americans.

       Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 10:16 PM

Also, the US knew the destructive power of the bombs it dropped on Japan. They had tested one at Alamogordo, New Mexico. Here. Also, thsi is the first I have heard of there being a fourth bomb. My understanding is that there was the one used at the Trinity test and the two dropped on Japan. Thank you for the info.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Peace
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 09:52 PM

I imagine that Japan attacked for the same reasons the US attacked Iraq. As to whether the use of the weapons constituted a 'nuclear war', I will rephrase to say the US dropped nuclear weapons on the homeland of its enemy. The people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki died in/due to/because of nuclear explosions.

IMO, it was a nuclear war.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: EBarnacle
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 09:42 PM

"Why did Japan attack..." Imagine you are sitting on an overpopulated island, trying to build an industrial economy, have minimal resources, have militaristic traditions up the wazoo and are being boycotted by other major colonial powers.

Add in the fact that your allies in Europe seem to be doing well and are encouraging you to make a move to divert the attention of the non-Axis powers. If you don't want to be treated as a minor ally by your guys and have too much self respect to ask people you despise to give you what you need, what would you do? Sieze it, perhaps?

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 07:14 PM

I resent it when the guilt brigade masquerades as liberal. Plenty of liberals were saved by the bomb, including my father, a Democrat all his life who was proud that his President didn't hesitate to defeat the enemy before he was moved to the Pacific to be a part of the invasion fleet.

If you want to address barbarism, take your anti American views to the tortured and raped at Nanking.

Using the bomb as it was defeated one of the most barbaric enemies of all time.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 05:23 PM

"There is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of Western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the US. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of Western countries." - George Orwell (in 1945), quoted in a letter to The Spectator

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,PeteBoom at work - hey its Friday
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 05:05 PM

Ah yes - August. So, it is time for the annual America should feel guilty for bombing Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

I could not disagree more. The thread here from last year is kind of interesting. I recommend Raedwolf's post from 13 August (about the middle). I stated my blood-thirsty views in that thread. They have not changed.

Why did Japan attack Pearl Harbor, the Phillipines, Singapore and Burma? Why did the US cut off sale of materiel to Japan? Why did Japan invade China? Why did no one in Japan mount an effective way to stop the spiral of rampant militarism?

It was only a matter of time before the great secret of nuclear weapons were uncovered. Getting the genie back in the bloody bottle was always the issue, wasn't it?

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 01:59 PM

I wonder if the Japanese will apologize for Pearl Harbor.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: Tam the man
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 12:18 PM

I wonder if G W Bush will say sorry to the Japanese.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST,peg
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 12:02 PM

I find it odd that no one has mentioned the bigger picture of what this nuclear exchange unleashed. Namely, the adverse effects of nuclear proliferation.

I don't even want to debate the justification of the use of these bombs on a civilian population. There isn't one. I agree that one main motivating factor was to engender a large-scale nuclear pissing contest between world powers. The United States, in its glorious, horrific and very short life on Earth has been an arrogant bully from the get-go, forsaking its abilities and resources that might have made them a model nation for the dubious satisfaction gained from upholding a culture and government ruled by greed, competition and tyranny. Fortunately they have plenty of company in this.

Countries like Russia, the United States, France, England, etc. still sit on their tidy piles of bombs (thanks to Presidents Carter and Clinton for at least making an attempt to decommission many of them).

This idea of tacit mutually-assured destruction may seem passe now, but the fact remains there is still enough firepower controlled by the world's most militarily-sophisticated nations to blow the planet to smithereens several dozen times over. The only comfort anyone has derived from this (apart from those who inexplicably think it is a good thing to have all these deathboms lying around) is the idea that none of these nations would use such weapons without careful deliberation. This is not to forget the possibility that security breaches or terroristic acts might penetrate the silos, or that some stroke of geological or meteorological bad luck might finish things off for us.

Rogue nations with highly volatile and unstable political infrastructures (like Libya, or Jordan for example) have only to steal enough nuclear material (easy enough to do if you follow the news and have read of the unsettling amounts of plutonium and uranium that go missing each year) to construct a bomb and explode it pretty much anywhere. Can you all imagine the fallout (no pun intended) from such an event?

I have not even begun to mention the ways in which the production and testing of nuclear weapons and the generation of nuclear power have compromised public health and safety over the years.

The most obvious demonstration of naivete in my humble opinion is a failure to look at all sides of the issue. Our most basic needs for human survival: clean water, pure air, untainted food, and a thriving, diverse ecosystem, have been annihilated in the race to have the most nuclear bombs. Even if we one day decide to get rid of them all (as we might if there are any survivors after the next nuclear exchange), the resultant toxic waste will be a threat to life on Earth for millions of years.

Humanity will not rise like a Phoenix from these ashes. It will most likely barely stir as the poison wind passes over the rubble of the Earth. Circle of life.

peg

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 09:36 AM

I'm back - I am new here and after glancing at the front page of todays NY Times, I realize I am not concentrating on what "I" should be. I remember there was discussion on the pros and cons of the United Nations. The Iraq 'oil for food scandal' was one of the most recent.

On that front page was a story that 1 out of 5 babies are dying in Niger due to starvation. Additionally, over 26% do not reach the age of 5. I do not mean for this post to be a thread killer. Simply, I am guilty with regard to not focusing on what I considered a more important issue. I will have to look for the "UN thread" and focus my attention there. Besides, several of you here, even though reflecting some of my thoughts, are way too articulate for me.
Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: mooman
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 09:30 AM

Guest,

Polite difference of opinion noted and appreciated!

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 09:16 AM

mooman, thanks. (I could use "Sam" rather than "Guest" but what difference would that make?)

I don't mean to imply that you are wrong. I simply disagree with your views on the subject. I think all facts were considered prior to the use of the Atomic bomb and that Japan was nowhere close to capitulation. I have never seen proof to the contrary.

By thanks, I am refering to your reply that helps me see your point of view. Of course, I shall stick with my view that the use of the 'bomb' ultimately resulted in decreasing the overall total of dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: freda underhill
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 07:58 AM

you said it, mooman.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: mooman
Date: 05 Aug 05 - 05:00 AM

A reply to Guest 04:27 PM (although I do not particularly see why I should reply to an anonymous post)

mooman, what is YOUR point?

My point is that I have a legitimate point of view and will not be browbeaten by others with a different point of view.

How many were killed by the Japanese Empire prior to the dropping of the A-bomb? How many countries had Japan invaded? How many additional Bataan death marches would it have taken to possibly alter your outlook?

Several million were killed by the Japanese I would estimate, and I am certainly no apologist for their atrocities or agression against other counties. Neither am I an apologist for the atrocities carried out by the Germans or for British atrocities such as the firebombing of Dresden. Many, although not (interestingly) all of these have been classified as war crimes.

robomatic does an excellent job of making the situation understandable.

He argues his case well but it is his point of view. Others have other points of view.

But, perhaps, not to those to have a deep resentment for the US, be they citizen or not.

I do not, and never have had, a deep resentment for the US.

The fact remains that over 200 000 innocent civilians were instantly incinerated or poisoned by radiation in two essentially politically-motivated and unnecessary attacks. The attempts to justify this double atrocity, e.g. bushido, a long campaign to occupy Japan with hundreds of thousands of casualties, etc., are revisionist supposition. There is strong evidence to the contrary that Japan was in any case close to capitulation due to the destruction that had already been wrought on it (not just by the US but by other Allied forces as well).

Those are at least some of my points. To misquote Groucho Marx, if you don't like them I have others.

Peace

moo

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: NH Dave
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 11:27 PM

Checking the "facts" quoted from Wikipedia all I found were references to the people quoted, not that they had expressed informed opposition to dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.   I am sorry it took so many deaths to convince the Japanese military and their emporer god that the war was unwinnable, but if it comes to a case of sacrificing a few bombers and their crews, the two B-29s that actually dropped the bombs were accompanied by a number of other bombers and other aircraft documenting the two explosion, or several hundred thousand soldiers and a much larger number of Japanese soldiers and civilians, I'll sent the bombers every time.

    It is increasingly popular to blame the overwhelming horror of one country killing a quarter of a million helpless people by dropping two atomic bombs while totally ignoring the casualties resulting from the previous firebombing of Tokyo and similar targets which killed far more people, and left few casualties other than would result from any house fire on a gigantic scale.

    During the Pacific Island campaign we saw that it wasn't enough to seize an area, we had to eliminate every able bodied soldier before we had anything approaching pacification of the area. The fact that over the years, even as late as 2000, the odd former Japanese soldiers are still coming out of the bush, apologizing for their inability to continue a war lost 55 years in the past, shows that an invasion of the Japanese home islands would have required complete devastation of every area captured, with the attendant loss of civilian lives and military lives on each side of the conflict.

    We had a quick one-two punch, a hasty accepted peace treaty, and our people, under General MacArthur, with his aims for the Japan of the future, began rebuilding Japan's infrastructure, society, and economic conditions so that they were rapidly available to take their place in the Pacific regions, and the world at large. We were able to accomplish this because we were not dealing with the Soviet influence in accomplishing this task, due to MacArthur's unwillingness to accept ANY Soviet presence in Japan, which was not the case in Germany, or any of the Warsaw Pact countries who have only just began to exist as autonomous countries again, 60 years after WWII was over in Europe.

    Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: EBarnacle
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 11:09 PM

Although I am definitely not a fan of war and killing, I believe the bomb drops were necessary. My father was at the Port of Embarkation, San Diego. The word was out that all of the service members were going to be involved in the invasion of the main islands of Japan. When the bomb was dropped, my father got a short leave and, with my mother decided that he was likely to come home. They made me. My existence is very important to me, as temporary as it is likely to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: number 6
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 11:04 PM

good post robomatic

sincerely,
sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: robomatic
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 11:02 PM

The dead do not care what brought them there. They know only that they are dead. They no longer care what the name of the war is, if they ever did.


The only thing for us to do is make the world a better place than the kind of place that could produce such a war.


"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
A. Einstein

Subject: RE: BS: Hiroshima 60th Anniversary
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Aug 05 - 10:38 PM

freda, please explain to me the difference in killing 300,000 people in a 'moment' or the killing of a million over the space of a year.
The killing of civilians, no matter the methodology, is sad. But, it is an integral part of the insanity of war.

The bomb that destroyed the island was tested before any were used in Japan.

Peace, it would have been a nuclear war had both sides used the devices.