60th anniversary of a-bomb attack

[Bella]

Hiroshima survivors call for peace...


User Name: imafreethinker
Password: password

[albert cipriani]

I'm glad we did it. By any calculation, the Japanesse should be glad we did it, too.

When will we get over giving the fools of this world victim status? It's like we have buckets of guilt sloshing aroung and so jump at the chance to pass them out to the fire birgade that's called every time some jerk lights up a smoke. Let them smoke and smolder in peace. I'm not going to expend any guilt over the deaths Japan brought on to itself. -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Crumb]

That was an interesting article Bree, thanks for posting it. I was very moved by the official Japanese reaction to the bombings over the last 60 years. I have never heard anything about that before. I hope it does not change so drastically as they are suggesting it might.

[Darren]

80 000 deaths, almost all civilians, in one attack - an atrocity by any standards, or it should be at least. The horror of all those little kids dying so atrociously from radiation burns and the "black rain". And then Nagasaki. 90 000, wasn't it? Oh well, at least those kids were sacrificed to save the lives of all those innocent adult soldiers (and to stop the hostilities before those reds got too far down into South East Asia!). That's one interpretation of "suffer little childeren to come unto me", anyway.
Funny how when the Japanese invaded China and massacred 100 000 civilians, it is deemed criminal, but when America invaded Okinawa, killing around the same number of civilians, it is all the fault of the Japanese. Talk about a lopsided view of things!
It's interesting to see the inexcusable excused, real mental gymnastics - they make it seem so effortless with their skill!

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Darren

Funny how when the Japanese invaded China and massacred 100 000 civilians, it is deemed criminal, but when America invaded Okinawa, killing around the same number of civilians, it is all the fault of the Japanese.

That's not funny. It's stupid.

I understand how mindless people don't much recognize facts, but ususally they do give grudging credence to motion pictures. So why don't you? Haven't you seen the motion pictures of mothers throwing their children over the clifts and jumping after them? The Japs did the same on Saipan. But according to you American GI's are responsible for their cult of death and unwillingness to surrender.

No wonder you're on an atheistic message board. If motion pictures of facts can't get any credulity out of your brain, how can the word of God spark any conviction in you either? What a hopeless example of mental rot you represent! Shame on you, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Darren]

Those motion pictures were filmed and produced entirely by the American military, they don't actually prove anything at all (think propoganda here).
Even if they were 100% authentic in all respects, they still wouldn't account for even 100 terrified civilians committing suicide out of desperation, let alone 100 000!

Actually, the American forces spokesmen themselves explain a lot (but certainly not all) of the killing when they describe how, by that stage in the Pacific campaign, standard tactics involved the use of extremely heavy firepower and ordnance to "clear" the way before the infantry advanced and before any contact could take place. This was designed to reduce casualties among the American forces, tough luck for the civilian population of Okinawa! They were just in the way.
Actually, if you really do think about it, how could even a Japanese soldier (let alone a civilian) surrender to an incoming shell, stick of bombs or stream of napalm? And do civilians have to surrender or die? I do agree that this is not obvious and takes some thought and consideration of the facts, but when these last are examined, the propoganda is undermined.
I suppose the authorities needed some way of explaining the horrendous "collateral damage", so the Signal Corps cameramen were brought in to sanitise the event.
Apparantly it worked!

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Darren

Those motion pictures were filmed and produced entirely by the American military, they don't actually prove anything at all (think propoganda here).

There you have it folks, the real non-reason Darren is an atheist. He, like the rest of you, has got an aversion to the truth. He’s so in love with his pet ideas, that even documentary films to the contrary are, well, propaganda. Until you are there, I suppose even hell will remain just another species of propaganda. Good Luck, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[Darren]

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

I understand how mindless people don't much recognize facts, but ususally they do give grudging credence to motion pictures.

Certainly one of them seems to!

Originally Posted by albert cipriani

So why don't you?

I'll give you one guess!

I tried, but I just couldn't resist
Come on Albert, you even talked about a Goebbels film in one of your posts, you know that anything on film is like anything else that is produced, inevitably biased.
Film is at least selective in that its producers both consciously and unconsciously choose what "facts" to represent and how they will be represented, as we know it can be downright deceiving too.
Are you actually disputing who the cameramen and producers of the Okinawa footage were? Now that is a cold hard fact, they were in the U.S. military, and they were producing film for the U.S. military. Therefore they were biased, unavoidably so. Calling something "truth" because its on film is a bit naive.

[godfry n. glad]

Not to mention the "truth" of the "million American lives saved" by the dropping of the two bombs. That figure was made up out of thin air by McGeorge Bundy, who wrote the speeches for Secretary Stimson on why they were used.

What has been fairly well obscured by Allied "histories" of the end of the war in the Pacific is that Japanese sources were already looking for avenues to sue for peace before the atomic bombs were dropped. This was acknowledged by the Allied leaders at Yalta. The "necessity" of the atomic bombs was a rationalization...propaganda. It sure made us feel better, having repeatedly violated the standards of waging war we held when we entered it, the atomic bombings being the most egregious of the violations.

[Adora]

Originally Posted by The Dick

If motion pictures of facts...

Yes. Of course. Because movies aren't fabricated. Or staged. Ever. There's no such thing as propaganda. The raising of the flag at Iwojima was totally not staged. Nu-uh. Nooooo way. That's fact, that is.

[Ari]

I purposely didn't respond to Al because I have noticed it is impossible to have any kind of serious mature conversation with him when he thinks he is right.

But since someone opened the can of spam, I will add, I don't think most people are against the A-bomb being a large bomb. Nor are they against the idea of trying to ultimately save lives. What they are against is the fact America purposefully chose a civilian target to bomb. That the number 1 consideration when picking a target was how much civilian damage we could do. If such an event happened today, to the US, during a war, we would call those who did it terrorists and animals. Yet the majority of the US finds it acceptable that we did it to someone else.

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Ari

“What they are against is the fact America purposefully chose a civilian target to bomb.”

Duh! What other targets were left in 1945 Japan?! We’d already firebombed every thing else. Why not shed your crocodile tears over those civilian deaths that far exceeded the deaths of both a-bombs put together? I know. It’s cuz it’s more cool to be against the deaths caused by a non-PC a-bomb than it is to be against deaths caused by plain old conventional bombs. And why is that? Because, like, what’s cool is cool and the fact that I’d even have to ask you the question proves that I am not as cool as you.

Since Sherman’s march to Savannah, there has been no such thing as a war in which civilians are considered off-limits. Where have you been these past 150 years? Because of the Industrial Revolution, battlefields can no longer be fields. They extend into the heart of all cities. If you paid more attention to military history and less attention to trying to be cool you might not look like such an idiot.

The only question is whether or not combatants make attempts to discriminate between industrial and civilian targets, to maximize the former and minimize the latter. That we did in every war we fought. That you can’t see that probably has something to do with why you see documentary footage of Japs committing suicide as our own propaganda. Damn you guys are dumb!

“The number 1 consideration when picking a target was how much civilian damage we could do.”

Pray tell Mr. Living in La La Land, exactly what kind of targets do you have in mind that don’t involve civilian damage? Be specific now: mountain tops,? Do you imagine the Japs centralized their armament manufacturing to make it easy for us to bomb such things without killing civilians? Do you think they blew a whistle so that all the civilians would go home and be fast asleep in peace while we night-bombed the place? Or do you even know that the Japs located POW camps next to targets of military worth?

I hope you are simply ignorant, for the alternative is that you are mentally ill. – Disgusted, Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic Whose Brain Cells are Wasted on You

[livius drusus]

Are you intentionally using a racial slur when you say "Jap", Albert?

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

Are you intentionally using a racial slur when you say "Jap", Albert?

Do you prefer "Nip"?

[livius drusus]

I see. You disappoint me, Albert.

[Ari]

A reply to Al against my better judgement.

Duh! What other targets were left in 1945 Japan?! We’d already firebombed every thing else. Why not shed your crocodile tears over those civilian deaths that far exceeded the deaths of both a-bombs put together? I know. It’s cuz it’s more cool to be against the deaths caused by a non-PC a-bomb than it is to be against deaths caused by plain old conventional bombs.

You ignored what I said but call us dumb. Ok, whatever.
Guess what I said? "I don't think most people are against the A-bomb being a large bomb."
So yes, I am obviously against the A-bomb because it's cool to be against big bombs.
I am also saddened by other civilian death, but this thread is about the A-bomb, so stay on topic.

Since Sherman’s march to Savannah, there has been no such thing as a war in which civilians are considered off-limits.

So I shouldn't complain about targeting civilians because other people have done it. What great logic.

The only question is whether or not combatants make attempts to discriminate between industrial and civilian targets, to maximize the former and minimize the latter. That we did in every war we fought

Not reading the thread against, Tisk tisk.
What did I say?
"What they are against is the fact America purposefully chose a civilian target to bomb."
Whatever we did in "every war" we chose to maximize civilian casualties when dropping the A bomb (the current topic), not minimize them.

Pray tell Mr. Living in La La Land, exactly what kind of targets do you have in mind that don’t involve civilian damage?

Hey look, another bit of not reading the thread.
Civilian damage is inevitable. But "The only question is whether or not combatants make attempts to discriminate between industrial and civilian targets, to maximize the former and minimize the latter"
In this case we didn't choose to minimize the latter but maximize it. There were quite a few military targets still available but the military felt they wouldn't show off the bombs maximum power and wouldn't provide enough civilian casualties.

I hope you are simply ignorant, for the alternative is that you are mentally ill.

Should you really be saying this when you ignored the majority of my post? Exactly what does attacking people directly gain? On a message board you can't bully people to your side, but you can make yourself look foolish.

[Ari]

For those interested, you can read the minutes of the target Committee here,
Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee

A few bits relating to this discussion,

"He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August."

"These targets are:

(1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

(3) Yokohama - This target is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries. As the damage to Tokyo has increased additional industries have moved to Yokohama. It has the disadvantage of the most important target areas being separated by a large body of water and of being in the heaviest anti-aircraft concentration in Japan. For us it has the advantage as an alternate target for use in case of bad weather of being rather far removed from the other targets considered. (Classified as an A Target)

(4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)

(5) Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial despersion. It has oil refineries and storage. (Classified as a B Target)"

As you can see with this list of possible targets, there were better choices for military damage but they wanted a large amount of damage to the cities and thus civilian casualties.


Racial slurs:
The difference is, US is not a racial slur, Jap and Nip are.

[Bella]

What is a "nip" - ?

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by Ari

Racial slurs: The difference is, US is not a racial slur, Jap and Nip are.

Flat-footed assertions. That’s all I can expect from you guys.

Nip is short for Nippon and Jap is short of Japanese just like GI is short for Government Issue. Ergo, we don’t mean any insult in calling someone a GI but we do when calling them a Nip or a Jap!? Right? That you guys go along with these games is your problem, not mine.

The only question is, who makes up the “you’re-a-bigot rules of engagement” and why do you adhere to them? At the very least, the question is, how dare you conscript into your silly game people who don’t play your silly game? – Disgusted, Albert Biased Cipriani the Bigoted Traditional Catholic Who Proves His Irrational Hated of the Japanese by Shortening their Name to Japs and Thereby Countermanding the Ever-Changing Rules of Your Eeny-Meany-Miny-Moe, Catch a Bigot by the Gonads Game that I’m Not Playing

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Ari

For those interested, you can read the minutes of the target Committee here,
Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee

A few bits relating to this discussion,

"He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August."

"These targets are:

(1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)

(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target)

(3) Yokohama - This target is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries. As the damage to Tokyo has increased additional industries have moved to Yokohama. It has the disadvantage of the most important target areas being separated by a large body of water and of being in the heaviest anti-aircraft concentration in Japan. For us it has the advantage as an alternate target for use in case of bad weather of being rather far removed from the other targets considered. (Classified as an A Target)

(4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target)

(5) Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial despersion. It has oil refineries and storage. (Classified as a B Target)"

As you can see with this list of possible targets, there were better choices for military damage but they wanted a large amount of damage to the cities and thus civilian casualties.


Racial slurs:
The difference is, US is not a racial slur, Jap and Nip are.

I see that there was a list of targets I dont see where they selected targets that were of a civilian nature however. but even if they did, us lives were saved and probably japanese lives as well.

and most certainly chinese and pacific islander lives were saved because the japanese surrendered much more quickly then they would have otherwise.

[Ari]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I see that there was a list of targets I dont see where they selected targets that were of a civilian nature however. but even if they did, us lives were saved and probably japanese lives as well.

and most certainly chinese and pacific islander lives were saved because the japanese surrendered much more quickly then they would have otherwise.

Although not directly stated as civilian targets, one of the main factors for choosing a target was how much of the city could be destroyed, which could be considered civilian targets (in a similar way they don't refer to it as a bomb but a gadget).

It is possible it saved lives, but the big question is, did it save more civilian lives than it killed? Does saving soldiers warrant the killing of civilian Men, Women and Children?
Although it did hasten the surrender of the Japanese, from the historical discussions I have heard, they were broken at that point anyway and the fighting wouldn't have continued for too much longer.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Ari

Although not directly stated as civilian targets, one of the main factors for choosing a target was how much of the city could be destroyed, which could be considered civilian targets (in a similar way they don't refer to it as a bomb but a gadget).

It is possible it saved lives, but the big question is, did it save more civilian lives than it killed? Does saving soldiers warrant the killing of civilian Men, Women and Children?
Although it did hasten the surrender of the Japanese, from the historical discussions I have heard, they were broken at that point anyway and the fighting wouldn't have continued for too much longer.

I find the idea that the japanese were about to surrender to be ludicrous, they didnt even surrender right away after the first bomb.

also, iirc each week something like 100k chinese and pacific islanders were killed because of the japanese occupation. so if the bomb ended the war only by a couple of months quicker then it saved a fuckload of chinese and pacific islanders.

[albert cipriani]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

I find the idea that the japanese were about to surrender to be ludicrous, they didnt even surrender right away after the first bomb.

also, iirc each week something like 100k chinese and pacific islanders were killed because of the japanese occupation. so if the bomb ended the war only by a couple of months quicker then it saved a fuckload of chinese and pacific islanders.

Finally, after 40 posts, a dick head who makes sense! (Hey, what can I say, it's your avitar.)

Seriously, thanks for saying something competent here. But you must understand that the Chinese and pacific islanders don't have victim status like the Japs do. That's why the PC crowd hasn't disenfranchised any of our legitimate names for them yet as they have vis-a-vis "Japs" which is now verbotem. So, you must recognize that your perfectly logical appeal will fall on deaf ears, for this crowd has got racist eyes... and they're blindly turned on us.

In other words, welcome to the racists corner. I was here all by myself till you donned the obligatory dunce cap by being logical and joined me. If you want to get out of the corner, you must show your compasion for the Japs by calling them Japanese. Conversely, you must show your lack of compasion for the lives of the Chinese, Pacific Islanders, Rusians and everyone else, especially those big bad American racists (cuz they invented the word "Japs") by being against the a-bomb that saved at least two million of their lives.

When you gouge your eyes out to look at it that way, it makes about as much sense as anything else these clowns say. I mean, what's at least 2 million lives of the races we don't care about on one side of the balance beam when on the other side there's a mere 100-plus thousand lives of the Japs whom it's Politically Correct to feel sorry for? The lengths these non-racists will go to prove us to be racists is amazing. -- Albert Cipriani the Traditional Catholic

[godfry n. glad]

[QUOTE=beyelzu]

Originally Posted by Ari

and most certainly chinese and pacific islander lives were saved because the japanese surrendered much more quickly then they would have otherwise.

How do you figure?

By the time the bomb was dropped, Allied troops had advanced to within 500 miles of the Japanese homeland and secured a military staging area on Okinawa by June 1945. There was already a secured fighter base at Iwo Jima and bombers from the Marianas could fly almost with impunity over any Japanese target with fighter escorts. The Japanese fleet was tattered and in shambles. Strategic materials, primarily petroleum, metals and compounds necessary for explosives and propellants were dwindling, nationalists and communists in China had finally started working together and were driving the Japanese out of China,and it's only ally, Nazi Germany had fallen.

Any Pacific Islanders had already been "liberated". The "last stand" actions of Japanese soldiers in locales like Guadacanal and Iwo Jima, along with the kamikaze pilots indicated extreme conditions and desperate measures.

Japan was suing for peace. This was confirmed as early as February 1945, at the Yalta Conference. The Allies refused to negotiate. They wanted an unconditional surrender....not a negotiated one.

There is a compelling argument that the bomb was not dropped to compel the Japanese into surrender, but to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that any plans for overreaching after the war would be frowned upon and we had the wherewithal to back up our demands.

I think that a case could be made that very few lives need have been lost, as a siege of fortress Japan could have brought it to its knees, and surrender, relatively quickly and without loss of much life. Such was recommended, but ignored....because we had the bomb.

[Darren]

[QUOTE=godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by beyelzu

How do you figure?

By the time the bomb was dropped, Allied troops had advanced to within 500 miles of the Japanese homeland and secured a military staging area on Okinawa by June 1945. There was already a secured fighter base at Iwo Jima and bombers from the Marianas could fly almost with impunity over any Japanese target with fighter escorts. The Japanese fleet was tattered and in shambles. Strategic materials, primarily petroleum, metals and compounds necessary for explosives and propellants were dwindling, nationalists and communists in China had finally started working together and were driving the Japanese out of China,and it's only ally, Nazi Germany had fallen.

Any Pacific Islanders had already been "liberated". The "last stand" actions of Japanese soldiers in locales like Guadacanal and Iwo Jima, along with the kamikaze pilots indicated extreme conditions and desperate measures.

Japan was suing for peace. This was confirmed as early as February 1945, at the Yalta Conference. The Allies refused to negotiate. They wanted an unconditional surrender....not a negotiated one.

There is a compelling argument that the bomb was not dropped to compel the Japanese into surrender, but to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that any plans for overreaching after the war would be frowned upon and we had the wherewithal to back up our demands.

I think that a case could be made that very few lives need have been lost, as a siege of fortress Japan could have brought it to its knees, and surrender, relatively quickly and without loss of much life. Such was recommended, but ignored....because we had the bomb.

Especially the bit about the "unconditional surrender" clause. Actually, it was only a couple of fruitcakes in charge of the Japanese military who believed in death before dishonour by that stage. The pm was for surrendering.
As you suggest, a complete naval blockade of Japan would have tipped the balence given the state of things (i.e. no air force or navy, no big friendly allies to bale the Islands out with supplies etc.)

An interesting comparison might be drawn with island Britain in the early forties. Germany didn't manage to destroy the RAF in 1940, and were hopelessly outmatched by the Royal Navy's surface fleet from the outset. Even so, Britain depended entirely on the Atlantic Convoys returning from the US and Canada to continue resisting. That was Britain's Achilles heel and it was the blockade by the German U-boat fleet, not the Luftwaffe air raids, which nearly broke Britain by, at two different stages in the war, sinking a greater tonnage of supply ships than was being built.
If the RAF and RN had not remained intact and developed to counter the U-boat threat in '41, '42 and '43, the Atlantic supply line would have been cut and Britain would have been forced out of the war.
The united nations could have mounted a far more effective blockade against Japan in 1945 than Germany could have dreamed of raising around Britain. Moreover Japan, possessing no means of breaking such a blockade, could not have established a lifeline even if there existed the possibility of obtaining supplies and munitions from any continental source.