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

Only Monday morning quarterbacks who have no clue of history deny this

 

For cryin out loud. Our military leaders dropped the A bombs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debat...i#Would_prevent_many_U.S._military_casualties

- - - Updated - - -

I remind you Ike was more of an organizer than a combat general officer. And he was not charged with dropping the A bombs. He sure went though those Germans like the brown stuff does through a goose eh?

 

No they didn't. The military "leaders" were divided, but those most directly involved were for it. Also, we have a civil government not a military government. Every goal of dropping the atom bombs was achieved.

 

Everything I wrote is accurate and you are just posting non-existence fantasy reality - over and over.Generals you claim against it actually wanted to drop atom bombs on Tokyo, China and Russia. They were fired for it too. Only then did they say, "oh, I changed my mind!" but it was too late, their were fired.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah, millions of people, including little girls, should have died so one of your in-laws didn't suffer. Now you explained your reasoning. Of course, millions of other people have that they didn't suffer as their reason, huh?

 

That's a very big yes.

 

japan got richer because America atom bombed it.

today the japanese and english live better than more than half of Americans with their generous socialism from trade deficits at Americas expense, it was our consequence.

 

What a rewrite of history and a complete lie

- - - Updated - - -

No they were not divided. They spoke in unison. Strongly against dropping the bomb. That is a fact

 

http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm

Man oh man, the list of high ranking professional soldiers of the time from the various branches either against the nuking of the cities or at least of the opinion that it was unnecessary is indeed very very long!

I don't know what I'd say if they all favoured it; I'd be left with "nothing" but my civilian revulsion for mass murder of children, I guess.

 

Thank you. Read away folks. Were these guys idiots?

 

One of the more thoughtful excerpts:

The Under-Secretary of the Navy, Ralph Bard, formally dissented from the Interim Committee's recommendation to use the bomb against a city without warning. In a June 27, 1945 memorandum Bard declared:

Ever since I have been in touch with this program I have had a feeling that before the bomb is actually used against Japan that Japan should have some preliminary warning for say two or three days in advance of use. The position of the United States as a great humanitarian nation and the fair play attitude of our people generally is responsible in the main for this feeling.

During recent weeks I have also had the feeling very definitely that the Japanese government may be searching for some opportunity which they could use as a medium of surrender. Following the three-power conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

I don't see that we have anything in particular to lose in following such a program. The stakes are so tremendous that it is my opinion very real consideration should be given to some plan of this kind.

 

Just curious whether anyone has changed his initial position on the original question in light of the debate here? I confess I have not.

 

World view of the bomb.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ught-around-the-world/?utm_term=.10379d952027

First, admit you have a bias. It is the same bias you had to begin with. None of this has moved the needle on your thinking.

I could cut and past the article. Never mind, click and read.

 

No, your spammed messages are false. At least you did admit you were fine with millions of Japanese killed, millions more Chinese killed, hundreds of thousands of Russians killed, tens to hundreds of thousands of Americans killed, and Japan becoming part of the USSR. Sounds like a quite sadist alternative plan you've offered.

 

Yes, you explained your view that it would have been better for millions to die and Japan enslaved into the USSR rather than for one of your relatives to have suffered. Got it.

 

Among those officers actually were generals who wanted to "nuke" Tokyo, China and Russia. Only later - after fired for pushing for nuclear wars we started, did they say they changed their minds. Others of the generals and Admirals hoped the war would continue to give opportunity to get into a war with Russia - thus keeping their jobs and seeing their names in the newspaper winning more battles. But, then you have also taken the position that children dying, actually even Japanese children, is fine as long as it isn't by an atomic bomb. Burning them to death with napalm, however, is a-ok because it is not atomic.


By your message you have no revulsion to the mass murder of children at all. Only the mass murder of Japanese children in a Japanese war industry city and only if they are killed by an atomic bomb. Any other children could die, just not Japanese children unless killed ("murdered" as you put it) by atomic bombs - otherwise no problem with it, by your explanation.

As I stated, the core of your message is hatred of the United States like progressives are taught in the enlightened view, thus you use the term "murder" rather than killed, though their parents opted to have them bombed having been warned in advance. It is quite popular for progressives to call the American military "murderers," and only the American military. How can you stand to live in this country anymore?

 

He keeps ignoring it was military leaders that dropped the atomic bombs on Japan. Not one time, but two times.

 

A military leader can defy the president? Military leaders have to follow orders.

 

I think reports are that 68 Japanese cities were destroyed or almost destroyed. Hiroshima on the other hand was 25 percent destroyed. The size of Hiroshima is nearly the size of Los Angeles. We see the A bombed part yet the parts not reached by the A bomb are seldom seen.

 

Ignore our greatest military leaders...they do not accept your agenda

 

Who was the general MOST in favor of using the bomb was the general whose job it was to figure out how to invade mainland Japan - and how many tens to hundreds of thousands of Americans would die killing millions and millions of Japanese civilians crudely armed fighting to the death and in mass suicide charges. He thought it better to just go ahead and end to war. Wise decision.

And Eisenhower, the best chief clerk and bean counter of the military, was not commander of the American military, President Truman was.

- - - Updated - - -

Your military leaders wanted to drop atom bombs on Tokyo, China and Russia. In fact, they all did accept the "agenda" of dropping the bomb, didn't they? Not one of them issued an order not to. Not Eisenhower, not Halsey, none of them - so if you are correct then they all were knowingly and willing mass murdering war criminals. Admiral Halsey didn't have to order his ships to deliver the bomb, did he? Eisenhower could have ordered it not be done.

ALL OF THEM "accepted' the agenda and all the key one supported it, as did the bulk of civilian leadership.

 

Are we talking about japan? Hey..Let's discuss toledo ohio? Lol

 

This is a case study in why sanctions and embargoes increase the risk of war.

 

That defense didn't work out so well for the Nazis. Military personnel are morally and legally obligated to refuse to carry out an unlawful order.