Though the article talks about a lot of different things pertaining to why we dropped the bomb, the part I mostly wanted to share was the fact that Truman really did not want to drop the bomb. He didn't want to use this horrible new weapon. However, estimates showed that more people would have died on both sides if an amphibious assault was attempted. He also considered showing the Japanese the power of the bomb without actually dropping it on a (mostly) civilian target. These included dropping it over the ocean outside of Tokyo so the citizens could see it, and also inviting a Japanese delegation to a test site to see the power of the bomb. Both scenarios were quickly ruled out for a number of reasons. First, in both cases, if the bomb failed, we would just be a laughing stock and it would be harder to get them to surrender without completely taking their country through military force. Second, we only had five atomic bombs made. If one failed, and we then attempted to get them to surrender through dropping more bombs on their cities, they might not have surrendered and we would have ran out of bombs (those things take a long time and a lot of money to make). You then have to consider the fact that most of the Japanese still did not want to surrender after we dropped the second bomb, and there was even an attempted coup against the emperor for wanting to surrender.

__________________

Here's some nice music to listen to while posting in this thread.

Unsettled is how I feel about watching opera. When it comes to the deliberate incineration of children I find the word "nauseous" more fitting. I think it's important for humans to feel justified about their historical baggage and that comfort zone requires some suspension of reality to make, unfortunately there is no difference between nuking civilians and walking from door to door dragging them out and shooting them in the head to make a point. It's a lot safer to do it from a plane but the same spirit is there in the hearts of the killers.

I don't believe in free passes for that kind of brutality, not for the sake of one flag or another that it goes by. I can understand the mindset, but I still see it as a criminal mindset. luckily few people around today have to carry the baggage of what their grandfathers did, and they shouldn't have to, as you can't chose where to be born. I don't feel I owe anything to my grandfather except that he got lucky once. Respect isn't automatic based on that.

This is not a perfect world. People will die because there is conflict. The best thing to do is to make sure that fewer people die rather than more, and this is the reason why we dropped the bomb. It was not to make a point, it was to prevent us from having to invade the islands which would have killed many more people. Had we not done anything, more people still would have died. It was simply the best decision we could have made.

__________________

I disagree for the following reasons:

#1 Japan had already sought terms. Invasion was unnecessary. What the allies wanted was the complete destruction of the enemy, not the capitulation which was already on the table. That is what I term wanton destruction.

#2 Soldiers dying is more honourable than killing innocent people. I don't buy trying to save the life of a fighting man by killing a mother out hanging her washing. That makes a man as evil as the enemy he fights.

#3 The nukes were a demonstration to russia. soviet forces were massing in Sakhalin at the time. I highly recommend watching the fog Of War interview with McNamarra regarding this.



Allied bombing of civilians is the single largest unpunished crime of the 20th century [because we already know the axis guys swung for it]. In the 50 years after the war, allied nations went on to kill millions more by this method, and somehow it got the rubber stamp for sanitary the whole way through. The legacy of those nukes is that sane people still think bombing civilians is a legitimate and honourable method of war. The only condition now in the enlightened 2nd millennium is that we think we are being righteous by saying that at least we aren't trying to kill them on purpose. Unfortunately when you drop a 500lb bomb on a city block to get one guy, you aren't exactly trying very hard.

History is written by us but it doesn't take a sharp mind to stand back and weigh what our people have really done, or really become. We are the efficient and cold killing machine that believes it is inherently good despite the piles of dead women and children. You know you've turned a moral corner when those piles don't make you want to hurl, and an even more ominous corner when they mean nothing but strategy gone right. [you as figurative not personal]

Japan had not sought terms. Even after the second bomb was dropped, only 3 internal diplomatic messages supported opening talks compared to 13 that said "no surrender no matter what." Only the voice of the Emperor truly allowed Japan to surrender after the second bomb. However, even after this there was an attempted coup of army officers to take the government from the emperor to prevent surrender. This was all after the second bomb was dropped. There was nothing before this. There were no talks, there was nothing on the table. Please read the article that I gave a link to earlier in this thread.

The Japanese people were ready to fight to the death in the case of invasion. They were training themselves to use sharpened bamboo stakes to kill American soldiers with. If they lost, they were willing to commit mass suicides.

You are correct when you use the words "nukes." We could have used fire-bombs and killed more people (I believe the statistics were posted earlier on this thread), but instead we used the nukes to prove to the Soviets what one bomb could do. I believe McNamarra's Fog of War is his attempt to repent for his involvement in Vietnam after a Quaker burned himself in front of his office in protest and it emotionally scarred him for life.



In the end, the bomb ended the war on the most painless terms possible. Please read the article that I posted a link to somewhere above.

__________________

Japan responsible for roughly 55 million deaths in WWII. Allied with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Total death toll roughly 75 million of those almost a half died from the outright genocidal policies of Japan, Germany, and Italy ...aka the AXIS

..and some fool is calling dropping a bomb on Japan a crime.

__________________
McCain/Palin 2008
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"Peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"Keep that faith,keep your courage,stick together, stay strong,do not yield,do not flinch,stand up,we're Americans,we'll never surrender they will"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

Military industrial production depends heavily on civilian workers, Japan was no different. That didn't make these cities any less of a military target

__________________
Why won't the Richard J. Daley Library release Obama's and Weather Underground Bomber Bill Ayers Annenberg Challenge's papers? What are they hiding?

Those are images to show why we shouldn't have.

Again, it is a myth we would have lost soldiers.

You people are sick and preverted if you are fine with those images.

And we ended it in a grotesque and sickening fashion that was unnecessary and not becoming of the United States of America.

People can try to justify barbarism, but at the end of the day, it is still barbarism. I gurantee had any other nation dropped it for "military reasons" other than the United States, everyone would be up in arms about it.