Hiroshima debate? - Page 11




 
--
 
August 10th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Hindsight is always 20/20 Ashes. There are few events in human history that somebody doesn't look back on and say, "Well sure it turned out okay, but you still screwed up here, here and here."

I would like to propose one particular reason that the dropping of the two Atom Bombs was, in retrospect, perhaps not such a great thing: Hiroshima and Nagasaki have provided the ultimate bloody shirt for the Japanese to wave all over the place. To this day, the Japanese hold the claims of their tens of millions of victims in utter contempt, they have used the deathtoll of less than half a million in the Atomic blasts and called themselves the real victims, and calling all accusers liars. The Japanese did not just kill tens of millions as an unfortunate side-effect of war. They executed and murdered them in the most brutal fashion they could manage. Those murders were ordered by the Japanese government at the highest levels. They did not just rape women when a few bad soldiers went off on their own to 'partake the spoils of war.' No, the highest levels of command in the Japanese Army organized the kidnapping and enslavement of over 20,000 non-Japanese women who were very often raped up to 40 times per day, nonstop for many years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women
The Japanese made sport of bayonetting babies at Nanking for hellsake. And they have the audacity to hide behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki, telling the world that they are the real victims. When it comes to admitting their mistakes from World War II, Japan absolutely refuses to grow up and be responsible. To whatever degree Hiroshima and Nagasaki enable them to be so irresponsible ... I suppose that makes the two Atom Bombs a bad thing in a big way. Germany did not hide from its past, but the Atom Bomb gave Japan a ready made excuse.
August 10th, 2005  
Young Winston
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young Winston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Well, certainly not as much a factor as the other considerations, but I do believe it was weighed in. Americans hated the Japanese at the time it's true, but we do not as a people take any joy in killing even for vengeance.
After Pearl Harbour, the US Government beat the "vengence" drum very loud.

Read "h**l in the Pacific" and many other sources.
Why don't you read my full posts? If you had, you would know that my father fought the Japanese in the Pacific as a US Marine. My mother's brother was a POW of them and was forced into slave labor by them. I know full well what happened in the Pacific. That was not what I was talking about in so much as what the US administration and the American people as a whole felt. Vengeance yes, but killing for the sake of killing no - not the greater majority of Americans.
Vengence, unfortunately can bring its own pleasures. Much documentation of US and Allied soldiers experiences has shown that many enjoyed killing Japanese. It was the nature of the fighting, Japanese atrocities and the attitudes that prevailed at the time towards the Japanese race that brought this out. Even an idiot would know that it is not a part of American culture to kill just for the sake of it.

In the heat of battle, some terrible things were done on both sides. But that was the way it was. Ordinary people were brutalized by their experiences.

Of course you know all this already.

Most of this is off topic. Should continue this under another heading.
August 10th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Corocotta........You seem to be suggesting that conventional bombs are okay, yet on one bombing raid Tokyo suffered 100,000 killed about the same number that killed in Hiroshima. So it is okay for them to killed in fire storm brought about by conventional bombing, your logic escapes me. Also you asked why they did not use conventional bombs to take out these Cities well one of the problem the American bombers were dropping bombs faster than they could be delivered. You are also going on about people still dying from cancers from this bombing, well it seems to me that some 60 years on the people would be dying any way. Yet as I have said in earlier posts former POW are dying from the mistreatment handed out to the by Japanese, so whats the difference except that you wear a CND badge
Well, the main difference btw a nuke and a conventional bomb is too obvious. The radiation of a nuke pass from generation to generation in the genes causing malformation and all shorts of cancer, a nuke also pollutes the enviorement for a couple thousand years...I think none of this things is created by T.N.T.
--
August 10th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Corocotta........If the residue of radiation is so bad around Hiroshima & Nagasaki then why are they still building around these sites. Have you seen any of the research done on the surrounding radiation or have you just thrown this in to help support your argument
August 10th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeEnfield
Corocotta........If the residue of radiation is so bad around Hiroshima & Nagasaki then why are they still building around these sites. Have you seen any of the research done on the surrounding radiation or have you just thrown this in to help support your argument
No, I havenīt been measuring the amount of radiation.
But donīt you see a few differences btw a nuke and conventional weapons? Come on!

http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_F...uman.body.html

http://www.hiroshima-cdas.or.jp/HICARE/abe.html
August 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young Winston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Young Winston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charge 7
Well, certainly not as much a factor as the other considerations, but I do believe it was weighed in. Americans hated the Japanese at the time it's true, but we do not as a people take any joy in killing even for vengeance.
After Pearl Harbour, the US Government beat the "vengence" drum very loud.

Read "h**l in the Pacific" and many other sources.
Why don't you read my full posts? If you had, you would know that my father fought the Japanese in the Pacific as a US Marine. My mother's brother was a POW of them and was forced into slave labor by them. I know full well what happened in the Pacific. That was not what I was talking about in so much as what the US administration and the American people as a whole felt. Vengeance yes, but killing for the sake of killing no - not the greater majority of Americans.
Vengence, unfortunately can bring its own pleasures. Much documentation of US and Allied soldiers experiences has shown that many enjoyed killing Japanese. It was the nature of the fighting, Japanese atrocities and the attitudes that prevailed at the time towards the Japanese race that brought this out. Even an idiot would know that it is not a part of American culture to kill just for the sake of it.

In the heat of battle, some terrible things were done on both sides. But that was the way it was. Ordinary people were brutalized by their experiences.

Of course you know all this already.

Most of this is off topic. Should continue this under another heading.
So then it appears you've finally understood what I was saying all along.
August 10th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Was it vengeance or was it self preservation, back in those you had make sure the buggers were dead, or they would jump up and come at you again. Like some other people toady they felt there only path into heaven was to die on the battlefield. After a number of Allied soldiers had been killed by Japanese pretending to surrender,a much firmer line was taken. Then just how do you expect them to react. It was a time when the old slogan held true, the only good Japanese is a dead one. Just have look at the numbers of prisoners taken on some of these islands, they did not want to surrender they wanted to fight to the last and this is just what they did. Next thing you will be saying the Kamikaze pilots were actual on their way to surrender when they were either shot down or crashed on landing
August 10th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
I only stated that vengeance played a part, but not by far the more important part. I did say that it was, as you suggest LeEnfield, that saving lives was paramount. Next most important was sending a message to the Russians. Vengeance came after that and not, as I also stated, for the sake of killing. Vengeance played a role in that Pearl Harbor, Singapore, Manila, and yes, Nanking as well had all come before. A ruthless bloodthirsty enemy gets short consideration when it comes right down to it.
August 10th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
America like Britain having got into a war that was forced upon them, main aim was to pursue all aspects of this conflict to bring about a satisfactory conclusion, and if this meant taking drastic action to win this war then so be it. Most men killed to protect them selfs, there pals, and to win. They also knew in the Pacific campaign after a very short while that they would be shown little mercy if the surrendered.
August 10th, 2005  
TBA_PAKI
 
There are three major factors that conclude the use of Atom Bomb over Japan in WWII:

- The huge risk involved in conventional invasion of Japan by US forces as Japanese were well known for their stubborn resistance during fighting on ground. And this meant that huge number of Man-power would be lost in the invasion process.

- The projection of power to Soviet Union.

- Japanese leader "Suzuki's" decision of not to surrender even after the defeat. This perception is widely used by US Media to justify the act of use of Atomic Bombs.

Also do note that this decision was made by President Harry S. Truman and it might be possible that he had a harsher perception about armed conflicts.