 |
|
|
|
 |
Clovis
techno jungle shit
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Los Angeles
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
The self-hating type...drives me fucking crazy. Yes, we did drop the bombs and the results were horrifying to say the least. But what would've happened had we not? Those 2 bombs arguably brought WWII to a screeching halt and saved countless additional lives that may have been lost. |
The power of the atomic bomb did not need to be demonstrated on a civilian population.
We bombed those cities because we wanted to see how the bomb would work.
It was a complete atrocity, plain and simple. If you feel better justifying it to yourself because it "ended the war" great. I'm also glad it ended the war. But it didn't have to end the war by killing upwards of 200,000 people, hundreds of thousands more in their long aftermath.
There were other options...
| quote: | On May 10–11, 1945 The Target Committee at Los Alamos, led by J. Robert Oppenheimer , recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The target selection was subject to the following criteria: (1) they are larger than three miles in diameter and are important targets in a large urban area (2) the blast would create effective damage, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by August 1945. "Any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb." These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made. Hiroshima was described as "an important army depot and port of embarcation 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." The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value."[9]
During World War II, Edwin O. Reischauer was the Japan expert for the US Army Intelligence Service, in which role he is incorrectly said to have prevented the bombing of Kyoto.[10] In his autobiography, Reischauer specifically refuted the validity of this broadly-accepted claim:
"...the only person deserving credit for saving Kyoto from destruction is Henry L. Stimson, the Secretary of War at the time, who had known and admired Kyoto ever since his honeymoon there several decades earlier."[11] |
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does. |
|
|
 Aug-26-2008 23:19 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clovis
techno jungle shit
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Los Angeles
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Clovis, I don't think that really makes a much more compelling argument (not to mention the hindsighted logic being used to rationalize your opinion).
OK. And?
I'd be inclined to agree, though I am certainly not a military strategist.
What? Seriously? Is this the crux of your argument? It's not those intelligent people that get to call surrender. And if I'm being the least bit glib about it, if you kill off all of the smart folks that can appreciate what just happened, might not the dumb ones (as the author implies) not figure out that they should surrender ASAP? Seriously. This is so subjective it's silly. |
Those are not my arguments, I dunno why you thought they were. Those are the choice of target reasons laid out by The Target Committee in Los Alamos, reasons why I think dropping the bomb was completely immoral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic...ma_and_Nagasaki
On a related page, here is a collection of opinions and views pointing out how the bombings were militarily unnecessary...
| quote: | Militarily unnecessary
Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.
The 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. After interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, it reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[60][61]
Historians, such as Bernstein, Hasegawa, and Newman, have criticized Paul Nitze, the author of the Survey report, for drawing a conclusion that went far beyond what the available evidence warranted, in order to promote the reputation of the Air Force at the expense of the Army and Navy.[62][63][64]
In any case, the survey's counterfactual assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion...[65] due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3,700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.[66]
Had the war gone on, these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:
"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell.[66]
One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[67][68]
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[68] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[69]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[61]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[61]
What was originally the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall has now been turned into the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The atomic bomb exploded almost directly overhead.
What was originally the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall has now been turned into the Hiroshima Peace Memorial. The atomic bomb exploded almost directly overhead.
Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945,[70] though the War Council did not know the extent of the losses to the Soviets in China at that time |
This is a whole other issue which we could discuss in a new thread though.
___________________
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Seplling don't demonstrate intelligence and educatoin - knowing does. |
|
|
|
Aug-27-2008 00:11
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:22.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
