why 6 aug 8.15am deserves silence

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That wasn't LeMay's intent when saying it.

It was part of LeMay's intent. And it's also consistent with LeMay's oft-stated position that all war is immoral and involves immoral acts.

[MikeH]

Originally posted by Verto


Why is that any worse than wanting silence for the Japanese, who committed atrocities just as evil as their German ally?

Park Avenue isn't Japanese though.

[mrmitchell]

Sadly, many do. Some have come to believe the Japanese were on the doorstep of surrender and the US needlessly used the bombs to scare off Russia, get revenge for the Japanese atrocities, etc.

Japan was tottering between fighting to the death and immediate surrender due to a struggle for power inside the upper ranks of the Empire (Japan's Generals wanted to beat the Emperor into a completely ceremonial role and fight to the death; the Emperor was wise enough to see that the war was a lost cause. This was pretty much the same for most of WWII as I understand.)

But the USA didn't know this was going on anyways. We just thought they were hardheads that would never ever ever surrender.

It's better that we dropped it, I guess. The plan for an island invasion was something like dropping them and then quickly moving US troops in to mop up, probably fast enough to get their share of the radiation.

(Don't expect a source for any of this, though. I get all my information from the History Channel.)

[Lawrence of Arabia]

remeber there are still people dying today of cancer and radiation poisoning which has been linked the the bomb.

[Solly]

Yes, I'm not Japanese.

[Sava]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That ignores the fact that there was a small chance that Japan would have surrendered had the Allies dropped their demand for unconditional surrender. Yes, most likely, had the Japanese tried to surrender on the condition that Emporer not be touched, there would have been a coup. It wouldn't have cost any lives to try.

Surrender needed to be unconditional. Remember what happened to Germany after WW1? Japan needed total defeat.

Second, at the time, the U.S. estimated the total dead from an invasion of the home islands to be 250,000 (1,000,000 casualties total), which is equivalent to the amount of people killed by the bombs. After the war, the number of casualties was taken for the number of dead.

well then those estimates are insanely low... that's also not even taking into account the experimental japanese aircraft that never saw combat... had the war dragged on and we invaded, we might have faced rocket powered kamikaze planes attacking troop ships. There were hundreds of experimental aircraft found after the war in underground hangars. I think you are forgetting the ferocity of the Japanese. I can only imagine a guerilla war involving the civilian population that would have been the result of an invasion.

Ultimately, it was probably the right decision, but don't act like it's not debatable.

anything's debatable... but the use of the bombs was by far the right choice. It's not even a close call.

But che, I know you all too well. The United States is a big mean murderer and aggressor. Everything the US does is evil.

You're right about a lot of things, but to be so blatantly against all US action, especially the use of the bombs, is just silly.

That wasn't LeMay's intent when saying it.

but regardless, Verto is right. Yes, the US targetted civilians in WW2. But you are judging those actions through the eyes of 2004. Try imagining what things were like during WW2. It's all well and good to have enlightened liberal views. But don't fail to keep things in perspective. War is hell. I think the US, for the most part, fought the war quite honorably. Compare that to our adversaries. And one last thing, in order to win a war, sometimes you need to fight dirty. Pussyfooting around is a good way to lose. And I'm sure you wouldn't want to be speaking German, or Japanese... that is if you aren't put to death in some alternate reality where the US loses.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
Yes, the US targetted civilians in WW2. But you are judging those actions through the eyes of 2004.

Targetting civilians wasn't viewed with horror back then? Well, then, I guess all that outcry we had against German and Japanese targetting of civilians was...what? Those war crimes tribunals were over...what?

The American public expressed revulsion at the Dresden firebombings, so any notion that there was a different mentality about then is false. We were fully aware that it was a nasty, horrible thing.

Try imagining what things were like during WW2. It's all well and good to have enlightened liberal views. But don't fail to keep things in perspective. War is hell. I think the US, for the most part, fought the war quite honorably. Compare that to our adversaries.

Again, reread what LeMay said. His point was that we were, when it boiled down to it, no more honorable than our adversaries. Was it necessary? Maybe, but it certainly wasn't honorable. The sheer carnage we wreaked on civilian areas in Japan through just standard bombing, not to mention the firebombings, was enormous. Cities as large as Cleveland suffered 75% casualty rates. That's horrific, not honorable. We can say it was necessary, but let's not pretend it was righteous. That's why I cited LeMay, because, as MtG pointed out, there's nothing righteous about it. It's a dirty, brutal, horrible thing.

And I'm sure you wouldn't want to be speaking German, or Japanese... that is if you aren't put to death in some alternate reality where the US loses.

Let's not exaggerate, okay? There's no way that Germany or Japan were going to invade the U.S. and take it over. Hell, Germany didn't even really want to invade Britain, and knew it was a logistical impossibility. We can discuss the ramifications of a different outcome of the war, but this kind of cliched hyperbole doesn't help.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why two bombs and not one?

I accept the preposition that Japan needed to surrender unconditionally, but one would be just as effective as two to ensure this.

Also, there was quite a bit of conflict at the time, as to how long Japan would have had the capacity to fight. Sure they held out in Okinawa, but Okinawa is not Honshu nor Honshu Okinawa.

Would you have civilians to deal with on Okinawa, or a core of hardened veterans?

How long would the cities be able to deal with an invasion?

I don't agree with the preposition that just because war is immoral, anything goes. After all, there has always been a code of conduct in war, at least up until the 20th century.

[MrFun]

When Vietnam veterans on Apolyton create a moment of silence thread and then some jerks decide to politicize a thread in which the only purpose was for a respectful expression of silence, those same Vietnam veterans get angry (rightfull so, I guess).


And now, some thoughtless people here are politicizing a thread that is only meant to be an expression of silence for human civilian lives that were lost in nuclear bombings, ignoring the obvious fact that those who wish to express this memorable silence do NOT believe that we should thus ignore the atrocities committed by Japan.

[SnowFire]

the Emperor was wise enough to see that the war was a lost cause.

Not really. McArthur, during the Reconstruction, intuited that the Emperor could be a wonderful ally and started rewriting history to have the Emperor as a peaceful guy who was out of the loop when Tojo & co. were plotting Evil (TM). There's actually a fair amount of evidence (some of it circumstantial, but that's what happens when you have people who refuse to be interviewed) that the Emperor was very much involved in the early plannings of the war, and was slow to admit defeat towards the end- he could have ended the war months before the atom bombs were dropped had he strongly come out against it, with the generals stock having dropped quite a bit by then. Conjecture, yes, but it does seem like in the last days of the war, the Emperor was paralyzed by indecision and pinning all his hopes on an extremely unrealistic plan involving Russian negotiations (when Russia declared war on Japan, I think that's when he got the picture that it wasn't happening.).

The Emperor probably should have been tried as a war criminal if all we care about is justice, and then we'd have had the full picture. However, I must admit that pragmatically, getting the Emperor on our side had certain benefits.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So?

Instead of 300 bombers dropping incendiaries for 4 hours and creating a firestorm that sucked the oxygen out of people's lungs 20 miles away, we had one bomb from one bomber. That's efficiency. Human beings have been searching for efficiency in warfare since the first Neanderthal. Better spears, bows, longbows, yadda yadda.

Why does getting killed by one method mean so much more than getting killed by another? For that matter, why is getting killed by a bomb worse than starving, or dying of pneumonia, TB, typhus, or any of a number of other diseases that were starting into outbreaks in Japan, due to poor health and housing conditions and shortages of basic medical care and treatment?

All war is immoral, and the a-bombs were instrumental in ending that war much faster than it would have otherwise.

Sorry to spoil most everybody's happy, first-world liberal angst, but if you have the choice between two nasty, evil decisions, opt for the one that gets the job finished first.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why two bombs and not one?

I accept the preposition that Japan needed to surrender unconditionally, but one would be just as effective as two to ensure this.

First of all, at that time there was debate on whether the bomb would explode each time; the US was considering detonating a bomb at an isolated location, with a Japanese envoy present to view it and report to the Emperor about it. This was ruled out because we couldn't guarantee the bomb would work, and we couldn't risk having the Japanese see a dud.

When it was decided that the best option was to drop a bomb, the US decided to use two bombs to make sure the Japanese realized we a.) had more than one bomb and b.) could manufacture them and c.) it wasn't a fluke.

Also, there was quite a bit of conflict at the time, as to how long Japan would have had the capacity to fight. Sure they held out in Okinawa, but Okinawa is not Honshu nor Honshu Okinawa.

Would you have civilians to deal with on Okinawa, or a core of hardened veterans?

The Japanese were training every able civilian to defend against an invasion, to protect the sacred home islands from the barbarians.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Would you feel the same way if it was Germany that droped a nuke on New York or London?

Ah, so thus we make the Nazis and the Americans/British equivalent. Excellent work.

[alva]

And I'm sure you wouldn't want to be speaking German, or Japanese... that is if you aren't put to death in some alternate reality where the US loses.

Russian maybe, german nah.

[Zero]

eh, **** everyone hooray nazis

Once you stop caring about whats right things just get much simpler...