Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

You just keep on calling Democrat officials mass murderers and Republicans humanitarian geniuses. But start doing so on other threads too.

 

Please present the evidence of every party affiliation of every military leader

 

I wonder how long we can keep this thread with you posting the same messages and my posting the same responses?

 

I wonder why you refuse to provide evidence for what you say?

 

don't let em troll you bro.

The poll speaks for itself. Everyone agrees that we should nuke our enemies.

We can make a fun day of it. Turn on some music, make some drinks, and we can nuke the enemy followed by a big party!

 

Normally, hind-sight makes me balk at using aggression but this is one case where I think I would have been more inclined to bomb Japan "WITH hind-sight" rather than without it. Part of the ingredients used in the bomb was slated for use against the US. by Japan.

 

Nuking by a poll.....hilarious

 

You present no reasoning other than you claim there are people would can quote and therefore that is proof, and then insist the actual history of the people you quote on their total views on atomic weapons, bombing civilians and war is irrelevant.

I not only provided evidence and quotes, but reasoning and logic - and actual reality.

 

You have repeatedly explained your opposition to democracy and representative government to instead advocate a military dictatorship.

Many of your experts wanted WW2 to continue and evolve to war against the USSR, thus keeping their jobs and glory, and even then atomic warfare against China. And in your military dictatorship we would still be in WW2 including your experts advocacy of using unlimited numbers of atom bombs, not just their firebombing cities.

 

I'll try to find time to post the party affiliation of Truman and Eisenhower.

 

You continue to just make things because you have no experience in the military or with military missions. I do. You don't know what you are talking about

 

I accept you have no evidence

 

Not for a moment do I believe you were in the military since you would not honor your bet concerning Jeb Bush. On anything personal I don't believe you about anything.

 

I could care less. It is obvious you never served. You saw a history channel program and now think you are a general. Lol

 

Neither of

Neither of us were in the military, other than maybe with your toy soldiers that you command. LOL

 

I served ten years active duty. You served French fries. Lol

 

Which one is you? LOL

 

Alpha mike foxtrot. Lol

 

Yes.

Destroying a small military installation with a very large bomb is essentially a waste of the bomb. We needed a target that fit the size of the weapon.

Unnecessary? We were at war. When you are at war you attack the enemy until they surrender.

We did offer some conditions, but that was not one of them.

Our conditions were mainly about letting the Japanese people recover and become a peaceful member of the world community.

Proven? Not really.

Claimed maybe.

No. It's pretty straightforward. The reason why we attack countries when we are at war with them is to try to win the war.

No. A crime against humanity involves the intentional targeting of civilians (the World Trade Center attack for instance). The A-bombs were dropped on military targets during wartime.

Actually he doesn't have LeMay and MacArthur.

LeMay in particular joined with Nimitz in recommending the third A-bomb hit Tokyo. Spaatz and Twining joined in on that recommendation as well.

 

I guess that's why we dropped the bombs on military targets.

When you're at war, you attack the enemy. That's how it works.

Except for Ike (who only told his views to a single person), these views were only expressed after the war was over.

And the generals and admirals who expressed these views after the war was over, had an axe to grind. They were arguing that their service won the war all by themselves, and as such should be spared post-war budget cuts.

They only said that after the war was over. And they were trying to claim their service was the one that won the war, so that it might be spared from post-war budget cuts.

No such consensus.

Nonsense. Not one military leader said that Truman was wrong.

Not very factual of you to take their words out of context to make it sound like they said the opposite of what they meant.

One of the benefits of a decent education is that I can in fact know as much (or even more) about the war than Nimitz did.

Nimitz was one of the leaders who reacted to Nagasaki by pushing to drop the third bomb on Tokyo.

Taking quotes out of context doesn't prove anything.

Wrong. The reason why we attack countries when we are at war with them is because that is how you win the war.

Japan was refusing to surrender. No one had any idea what it would take to make them surrender. All we could do is nuke them and hope for the best.

No. Truman wanted a message sent to Japan. That is why Japan was the one that we attacked.

It's Japan's fault that we needed to nuke them into submission.

The war was not over until Japan offered to surrender.

When the bombs were dropped, Japan was refusing to surrender.

That isn't true. At the time the bombs were dropped, Japan was refusing to surrender.

We dropped the bombs....and then Japan finally offered to surrender.

That is because no one was asking the generals for a recommendation.

You are leaving out the context that they only said that after the war was over. And the reason they said it was because they were claiming their own service won the war by itself (to protect it from post-war budget cuts).

That is incorrect. At the time the bombs were dropped, Japan was still refusing to surrender.

That is incorrect. The reason why we attack countries when we are at war with them is because that is how you win the war.

No such advice. Statements made after the war is over are NOT advice.

It was only their opinion after the war was over, when they needed to protect against budget cuts and suddenly started claiming that their service won the war all by itself.

 

The issue was the Japanese reverence of their "God, Emperor" Hirohito. The emperor was literally prepared to fight to the last man. Japanese propaganda denoting Allies as barbarians led to Japanese civilian mass suicides in the wake of Allied invasions of Okinawa, and other Japanese held atolls. The A bomb was an act of mercy in some respects.

 

Japan continued to refuse to surrender after the first one.

Japan surrendered after the second one.

If it had been my call, a SLBM would have been in the air seconds after the first tower fell.

Aimed at Afghanistan of course. It would have been a lot easier to hold the country if it were all desert with no population centers.

Japan attacked before declaring war. Therefore their attack was a horrible crime.

It was also a horrible crime for Japan to murder all those American POWs.

And if you care about non-Americans, Japan killed about 30 million civilians in their occupation of their Asian neighbors.

Do you think all those newborn babies thrown in the air and caught on bayonets in front of their mothers were soldiers?

We who? The Brits burned Dresden.

As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when you are at war with another country, you attack it. That's how war works.

It was an accurate impression. We had a number of bombs on the way when Japan surrendered.

Lots of Japanese soldiers were killed at Hiroshima.

Lots of Japanese weapons industry was destroyed at Nagasaki.

Actually we could. We were a week away from another bomb when Japan surrendered.

Then there would have been seven more bombs over September and October.

Then five more in November.

Then a minimum of seven a month from December on.

The third A-bomb would have been bounced off the top of Hirohito's head to see if it could get his attention. After that we would have started saving them up for use as close air support when our troops stormed Japan's beaches.

Actually no. LeMay was one of the leaders who reacted to Nagasaki by pushing to have the third bomb dropped on Hirohito's head.

No they didn't.

Reality isn't theory.

The Purple Hearts that were printed for the invasion of Japan were enough to cover the entire Korean and Vietnam Wars and still have a ton of medals left over.

Wrong. Aside from a private conversation between Ike and Stimson (that neither repeated), no general said any such thing.

Not a war crime to bomb a military target at the height of a brutal war.

Japan made no attempt to surrender before Nagasaki.

I deny them. You are taking people out of context to make it sound like they said things that they didn't.

Not a crime to bomb a military target at the height of a brutal war.

There was no torture at Guantanamo.

The fact that we lawfully defended ourselves does not give anyone the right to make an attack against us.

Japan was hardly vanquished. They were refusing to surrender.

Wartime attacks on military targets are hardly murder.

And since the war was still raging, it was hardly gratuitous to keep attacking the enemy.

Of course.

Apologies are for when you do something wrong.

We were entirely in the right.

First, we were lawfully defending ourselves.

Second, we dropped the A-bombs on military targets.

Wrong. When the A-bombs were dropped we had no idea what it would take to make Japan surrender.

No. The reason why we attack a country when we are at war with it is because we want to force it to surrender.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both major military targets.

Putting on a fireworks show does not have the same effect as destroying a military target.

Which is why we dropped the A-bombs on military targets.

History shows that this is incorrect. Japan was still steadfast in their refusal to surrender.

That is incorrect. The reason why we attack countries that we are at war with is to force them to surrender.

At that point both A-bombs had already been dropped.

Not at all. It was predicted that our invasion would lead to up to a million American deaths, with millions more maimed and wounded.

At the time the A-bombs were dropped, no one had any idea what it would take to make Japan surrender.

No. The reason why we attack a country when we are at war with it is to try to force it to surrender.

 

And yet they did not fight to the last man. They knew the war was over. They wanted one condition....and we gave it to them anyway

 

Please quote me one military leader that claimed his service won the war all by itself. If you make a claim back it up with facts

 

You don't get to make those choices after you start a war.

It's unconditional surrender, or annihilation.