JOTD
-
I've read of at least 2 opposing arguments some time ago. Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Some other people ask why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them, why did they choose to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians instead? I am not supporting any of the above views. I know too little about it. But from what I know it is not all that clear to me what really was the purpose and was US really justified in doing what they've done.
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Again go read up on your history. Japan had refused surrender only days before the bomb(s) were dropped. Konstantin Vasserman wrote: just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them, We only had 2 bombs - and one of them had not been tested ( the plutonium bomb ) . We didn't have any to waste. Richard I must have liberty Withal, as large a charter as the wind, To blow on whom I please. As You Like It. Act ii. Sc. 7. William Shakespeare
-
Roger Wright wrote: Wouldn't that have been embarrassing, trying to scare the hell out of an enemy with a dud? Indeed, imagine how embarrassed that chap in the cowboy suit who rode the bomb down would have been. Straddled to a bomb stuck into the side of some Japanese's pagoda. "Hi! It's a... errrr... happy new year!" probably would not have worked. That song was incredible Roger. Did you get my IM messages on it?
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaRoger Wright wrote: Using a feather is kinky; using the whole chicken is perverted!
Thanks:-O No on the messages - I logged out and went to bed... Nobody wants to read a diary by someone who has not seen the shadow of Bubba on the prison shower wall in front of them!
Paul Watson, on BLOGS and privacy - 1/16/2003 -
I've read of at least 2 opposing arguments some time ago. Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. Some other people ask why US did not just invite Japanese to a test of the A-bomb somewhere on the island to scare the s**t out of them, why did they choose to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians instead? I am not supporting any of the above views. I know too little about it. But from what I know it is not all that clear to me what really was the purpose and was US really justified in doing what they've done.
Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. This is true. The US did have some indications that Japan was considering surrender. BUT, it has to be qualified: the Japanese were intending on remaining an "Imperial" Japan - i.e. keeping the emporer and his power structure in control of Japan. Fortunately, that didn't happen because the US didn't see those as acceptable terms of surrender. In retrospect, that was the best thing to do. (It should be noted that, even after the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan still insisted on the emporer maintaining power. The US agreed, but then removed him from power once they occupied the country.) Also, in response to your earlier post, it wasn't 800+ thousand people killed. It was about a quarter of that number: 200,000*, which is roughly 0.4% off all deaths in World War II, which is also equal to the average number of people killed during World War II every seven days. *The number "200,000" includes not only the immediate deaths, but also the estimated number of people who died months or years later from radiation and burns. Also, to understand the use of the atomic bomb, you have to understand the mentality of the Japanese and the US' understanding of it. The entire Pacific war involved large numbers of Japanese involved in suicidal attacks for their honor and the honor of Imperial Japan. Not only were there Kamikazis, but the Japanese soldiers fighting on the Pacific Islands behaved with a kind of suicidal aggression. On one island, 5000 Japanese soldiers jumped off a cliff in a mass suicide rather than allow themselves to be captured. You also have to understand Iwo Jima. A tiny island with no vegetation, 21,000 Japanese dug in against a US invasion. The US bombed the hell out of the island with planes and ship bombardment and then invaded. They still had to fight for every inch of land because the Japanese were heavily entrenched. If Iwo Jima was this difficult, imagine what the much larger island of Japan would be like. In Tokyo months before the invasion, General Kuribayashi had been told "if America's casualties are high enough [in Iwo Jima], Washington will think twice before launching an another invasion against Japanese territory." The Japanese strategy of "no Japanese survivors" is heroic Japanese stance is commonly glorified in Japanese historical novels, plays and movies. It touches at the heart of the Japanese sense of sacrifice of the individual for the greater good. 1. The Japanese didn't fight a
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: nothing is as black and white as some people want us to believe seems to be a problem with Jason :cool:
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
and many others by the size of this thread. ;P
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
While on a propaganda tour George W. Bush visits a school where he explains his policy to the children. Afterwards he encourages the pupils to ask questions. Little Bob says:
_I have three questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
_
At that very moment, the bell rings for the break, and all children run out of the class room. When they come back, President Bush asks them again for questions. Now Little Joe says:
_Mr. President, I have five questions:
- How did you win the election, though you lost the enumeration of votes?
- Why do you want to attack Iraq for no apparent reason?
- Don't you think, that the bomb on Hiroshima has been the biggest terroristic act of all the time?
- Why did the bell ring for break twenty minutes earlier than usual?
- Where is Bob?
_
Regards Thomas
Disclaimer:
Because of heavy processing requirements, we are currently using some of your unused brain capacity for backup processing. Please ignore any hallucinations, voices or unusual dreams you may experience. Please avoid concentration-intensive tasks until further notice. Thank you.Lol! :laugh: Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Is this supposed to be a joke? It's just a political attack as far as I can tell.
That's in the eye of the reader. It can be read both ways. Personally, I always look for the humour and ignore any motive. Life's more laid back that way. :rose: Anna :rose: www.annasplace.me.uk
"Be yourself - not what others think you should be"
- Marcia GraeschTrouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Add-In for Visual C++
-
Some sources say that Japan was already about to surrender anyway. This is true. The US did have some indications that Japan was considering surrender. BUT, it has to be qualified: the Japanese were intending on remaining an "Imperial" Japan - i.e. keeping the emporer and his power structure in control of Japan. Fortunately, that didn't happen because the US didn't see those as acceptable terms of surrender. In retrospect, that was the best thing to do. (It should be noted that, even after the atomic bombs were dropped, Japan still insisted on the emporer maintaining power. The US agreed, but then removed him from power once they occupied the country.) Also, in response to your earlier post, it wasn't 800+ thousand people killed. It was about a quarter of that number: 200,000*, which is roughly 0.4% off all deaths in World War II, which is also equal to the average number of people killed during World War II every seven days. *The number "200,000" includes not only the immediate deaths, but also the estimated number of people who died months or years later from radiation and burns. Also, to understand the use of the atomic bomb, you have to understand the mentality of the Japanese and the US' understanding of it. The entire Pacific war involved large numbers of Japanese involved in suicidal attacks for their honor and the honor of Imperial Japan. Not only were there Kamikazis, but the Japanese soldiers fighting on the Pacific Islands behaved with a kind of suicidal aggression. On one island, 5000 Japanese soldiers jumped off a cliff in a mass suicide rather than allow themselves to be captured. You also have to understand Iwo Jima. A tiny island with no vegetation, 21,000 Japanese dug in against a US invasion. The US bombed the hell out of the island with planes and ship bombardment and then invaded. They still had to fight for every inch of land because the Japanese were heavily entrenched. If Iwo Jima was this difficult, imagine what the much larger island of Japan would be like. In Tokyo months before the invasion, General Kuribayashi had been told "if America's casualties are high enough [in Iwo Jima], Washington will think twice before launching an another invasion against Japanese territory." The Japanese strategy of "no Japanese survivors" is heroic Japanese stance is commonly glorified in Japanese historical novels, plays and movies. It touches at the heart of the Japanese sense of sacrifice of the individual for the greater good. 1. The Japanese didn't fight a
I just want to clarify the number of deaths: Hiroshima - 200,000 after first year Nagasaki - 700,000 after first year Where I get the info? Here for example: http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/[^] As for the rest of it. All I was saying is that there are different opinions on the subject. Some people thought the bombing wasn't necessary: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm[^] I am not a historian and original argument was not about history but more about the semantics of the word "terrorism".
-
Not only no, but *fuck* no. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
I guess, *f**** makes for a much more convincing NO. :)
-
I just want to clarify the number of deaths: Hiroshima - 200,000 after first year Nagasaki - 700,000 after first year Where I get the info? Here for example: http://www.csi.ad.jp/ABOMB/[^] As for the rest of it. All I was saying is that there are different opinions on the subject. Some people thought the bombing wasn't necessary: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm[^] I am not a historian and original argument was not about history but more about the semantics of the word "terrorism".
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: I just want to clarify the number of deaths: Nagasaki - 700,000 after first year Actually the number for Nagasaki is 70,000, not 700,000. Though the amount of energy generated by the bomb dropped to Nagasaki was significantly larger than that of the Little Boy, the damage given to the city was slighter than that given to Hiroshima due to the geographic structure of the city. It is estimated that approximately 70,000 people died by the end of the year because of the bombing. As for the rest of it. All I was saying is that there are different opinions on the subject. Some people thought the bombing wasn't necessary No, I think you're completely right. A large number of physicists at the Los Alamos labratories (the lab that produced the A-Bomb) started a petition urging the US president not to use it. With good reason, I think seeing an A-Bomb explode has a profound effect on a person's resistance to use it. Some of them became activists against nuclear weapons and war in general. It's been said that so many nuclear scientists left the field of nuclear physics after the A-bomb was dropped that it delayed the US' first nuclear power plant by five to ten years. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
Konstantin Vasserman wrote: I just want to clarify the number of deaths: Nagasaki - 700,000 after first year Actually the number for Nagasaki is 70,000, not 700,000. Though the amount of energy generated by the bomb dropped to Nagasaki was significantly larger than that of the Little Boy, the damage given to the city was slighter than that given to Hiroshima due to the geographic structure of the city. It is estimated that approximately 70,000 people died by the end of the year because of the bombing. As for the rest of it. All I was saying is that there are different opinions on the subject. Some people thought the bombing wasn't necessary No, I think you're completely right. A large number of physicists at the Los Alamos labratories (the lab that produced the A-Bomb) started a petition urging the US president not to use it. With good reason, I think seeing an A-Bomb explode has a profound effect on a person's resistance to use it. Some of them became activists against nuclear weapons and war in general. It's been said that so many nuclear scientists left the field of nuclear physics after the A-bomb was dropped that it delayed the US' first nuclear power plant by five to ten years. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
Brit wrote: Actually the number for Nagasaki is 70,000, not 700,000. So I am an idiot and I can't read... :-O :rolleyes: :)
-
Brit wrote: Actually the number for Nagasaki is 70,000, not 700,000. So I am an idiot and I can't read... :-O :rolleyes: :)
Well, I can't really claim I haven't done the same. :) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
and many others by the size of this thread. ;P
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *often it's easier this way ;) My main gripe is that (as I understand your posts) you see binarity where it isn't - e.g. calling Bush bad for his Iraq politics is the same as supporting Saddam. Either I misunderstand you completely, or you think Iraq is one of the things where "a man must decide who's side he is on", or you do believe in absolute (objective) good and absolute evil. That's puzzling me (really).
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
-
often it's easier this way ;) My main gripe is that (as I understand your posts) you see binarity where it isn't - e.g. calling Bush bad for his Iraq politics is the same as supporting Saddam. Either I misunderstand you completely, or you think Iraq is one of the things where "a man must decide who's side he is on", or you do believe in absolute (objective) good and absolute evil. That's puzzling me (really).
It's a royal pain to watch a sex drugs and rock'n'roll design decay into an aids crack and techno implementation [sighist] [Agile Programming] [doxygen]
I just get a little agitated when people are calling GWB a tyrant who wants to rule the world, when the real madman (Saddam) is on the sidelines laughing his a$$ off at them. Bush is doing what he and his advisors thinks is right in our "war on terror". I am of the opinion that they know things that we don't and are therefore getting ready for a military action that they believe is inevitable. Yes, I would rather see more evidence of Saddam's wrong doing before jumping into a war, but we aren't at war yet. The evidence will come. If it doesn't come before the war starts, then I will probably be against it. Go ahead and believe that Bush is "bad for his Iraq politics", but ignoring Saddam because of a hatred for Bush is just plain ignorant.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
I just get a little agitated when people are calling GWB a tyrant who wants to rule the world, when the real madman (Saddam) is on the sidelines laughing his a$$ off at them. Bush is doing what he and his advisors thinks is right in our "war on terror". I am of the opinion that they know things that we don't and are therefore getting ready for a military action that they believe is inevitable. Yes, I would rather see more evidence of Saddam's wrong doing before jumping into a war, but we aren't at war yet. The evidence will come. If it doesn't come before the war starts, then I will probably be against it. Go ahead and believe that Bush is "bad for his Iraq politics", but ignoring Saddam because of a hatred for Bush is just plain ignorant.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: Go ahead and believe that Bush is "bad for his Iraq politics", but ignoring Saddam because of a hatred for Bush is just plain ignorant. I don't think this is the case in general. I don't like Saddam more than you do. I think he's one of the biggest a-holes on this planet and deserves punishment. But entering someone elses soil with armed forces when he's not attacking another country is a delicate issue. I for sure want to be sure that he does indeed harbor terrorists and have WMDs that he plans to use before I support any military actions against him. I can't speak for other american policy criticisers, but I think they share my view on this. We can't just act on suspicion. In the civil court system, you can't put someone in jail until he's proven guilty. If GWB wants support for a military action against Saddam, he should really show some hard evidence which backs up what he's saying. Evidence that shows that he is indeed a danger to the world - we already know he's a tyrrant. Acting on suspicion, no matter what the suspicion is, is against the very foundation of a democratic society. I hope you see my, and perhaps many others, point of view. As we all know, Saddam is a tyrrant. He's no good for his people, and IMO he should be thrown into jail. But I think that has to be solved using the iraqi system, perhaps with a little help from us (UN et al) if asked for. If we move in with armed forces, we'll be viewed upon as the aggressors and the spiral of hate will just keep on winding. Perhaps you'd remove Saddam with such an action, but only to replace him with someone else who shares Saddams hate against the western world. The US airforce (or was it NATO?) dropped propaganda leaflets on the iraqi people. I think that's great! It's perfect! It's one way to educate (I know that's the wrong word, but it's the best I can think of) the people so that they realize that things can be better if they make a stand against their tyrrant. -- Ignorant people upsets me.
