Nuclear Weapons

[Beemnseven]

Dwight D. Eisenhower on dropping the atomic bomb:

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Dwight D. Eisenhower on dropping the atomic bomb:

"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."

If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.

As are we are all. As is anyone who plays videogames or likes porn. As am I because I run through J-broads like I'm original Tecmo Bowl Bo Jackson going against the Broncos D.

Trample is basically right. You would have preferred that the US dropped the first bomb on a non-civilian target but they definitely weren't about to surrender. Nevertheless, it was a lot of grandmas and kids who died in Hiroshima, so I'm not sure "glad" is the most appropriate way to describe one's feelings about the bombing.

Getting back to the main discussion, I'm yes on nukes for the reasons already outlined, although national missile defense is a load of dung.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.

Was this really necessary?

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Was this really necessary?

My grandfather also faught in WWII and it took him along time to get over his hate for the Japanese. I think what he said is still real for alot of our elders who fought and watch as their friends die around them. They also remember the day they attacked us on our own soil so the hate is still real for some of them. Many have moved on like my grandfather but some still hold that hate and always will. I wonder how these people with this hate go shopping when everything now comes from Japan.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by firstdown

My grandfather also faught in WWII and it took him along time to get over his hate for the Japanese. I think what he said is still real for alot of our elders who fought and watch as their friends die around them. They also remember the day they attacked us on our own soil so the hate is still real for some of them. Many have moved on like my grandfather but some still hold that hate and always will. I wonder how these people with this hate go shopping when everything now comes from Japan.

That's great, I just don't think that word needed to be used is all.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.

Not necessarily the best way to phrase your point, but my parents were born in the '30s and the anti-Japanese sentiment ran very deep for many who grew up or lived through WWII. I had a half-Japanese fiancee (was stationed at Yokota AB for 3 years) it was 1989-90 timeframe. Needless to say, my parents were less than pleased. Fortunately, the relationship fell apart.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Not necessarily the best way to phrase your point, but my parents were born in the '30s and the anti-Japanese sentiment ran very deep for many who grew up or lived through WWII. I had a half-Japanese fiancee (was stationed at Yokota AB for 3 years) it was 1989-90 timeframe. Needless to say, my parents were less than pleased. Fortunately, the relationship fell apart.

He also went off about Santa or Fanta? It was a drink that he hated. Sorry, I can't keep up with what's politically correct and isn't? If any Japanese took offense, the Baita Gaijin appologizes.

Ah Japanese women. . . . I almost married a Japanese women myself when I was over there. I'll take a Japanese woman over an American any day of the week. They really make a man feel like a King.

Let's not get away from the subject. Many believe that nuclear weapons are so horrible that we and everyone else should get rid of them. If we hadn't dropped those bombs on Japan my grandfather and my uncles might not have made it. I might not be here. No matter what anyone says about the Japanese they weren't ready to surrender. Only the Emperor had the final say and some tried to overthrow him when he made the record.

There is the world we would like to live in and the real world. Sure, no more wars with or without nuclear weapons would be great. It just isn't going to happen. I say the bomb is a good thing. It prevents another World War were millions die instead of these BS wars were thousands die.

If we had used the big one on Osama this war would be over.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.

Really? You don't think the government would drop them just because they could? You don't believe we weren't trying to send a subtle message to the Soviet Union, saying, "hey, look what we can do?"

Do you think Eisenhower was wrong in his assessment?

[steveo395]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Really? You don't think the government would drop them just because they could? You don't believe we weren't trying to send a subtle message to the Soviet Union, saying, "hey, look what we can do?"

Do you think Eisenhower was wrong in his assessment?

On July 26, we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. They said no, so we dropped the first bomb on August 6. Then we gave them another chance to surrender and they didn't. On August 9, we dropped another bomb and the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. This finally made them surrender.

The Japanese were going to fight to the bitter end. We would have had to invade if we didn't have the bomb, which would have caused a lot more casualties than the bomb did.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by steveo395

On July 26, we gave the Japanese a chance to surrender in the Potsdam Declaration. They said no, so we dropped the first bomb on August 6. Then we gave them another chance to surrender and they didn't. On August 9, we dropped another bomb and the Soviet Union invaded Manchuria. This finally made them surrender.

The Japanese were going to fight to the bitter end. We would have had to invade if we didn't have the bomb, which would have caused a lot more casualties than the bomb did.

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.

The Japanese kept their Emporer, but only in a ceremonial role similar to that played by the Queen of England. The Japanese were proposing a constitutional monarchy with the Emporer retaining power as head of state, which the United States rejected (to the consternation of many of Truman's advisors). While one can debate the necessity of dropping the bomb and the relative importance of Japan's acceptance of American style republican democracy, and I think you make some good points, it is misleading to suggest that Japan maintained an imperial system after the war.

World War II was the most senseless, horrible event in human history. Over 85 million people died. Some Japanese soldiers ate American captives' limbs while they were still alive. The bombing was a culmination of extreme cruelty and violence - on both sides - that is inconceivable by today's standards. My point being that you can't divorce the bombing from this context, and I can understand why the United States was willing to act as punatively as was possible at the time, even if it the argument that it was not completely necessary historically has some merit.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

The Japanese kept their Emporer, but only in a ceremonial role similar to that played by the Queen of England. The Japanese were proposing a constitutional monarchy with the Emporer retaining power as head of state, which the United States rejected (to the consternation of many of Truman's advisors). While one can debate the necessity of dropping the bomb and the relative importance of Japan's acceptance of American style republican democracy, and I think you make some good points, it is misleading to suggest that Japan maintained an imperial system after the war.

World War II was the most senseless, horrible event in human history. Over 85 million people died. Some Japanese soldiers ate American captives' limbs while they were still alive. The bombing was a culmination of extreme cruelty and violence - on both sides - that is inconceivable by today's standards. My point being that you can't divorce the bombing from this context, and I can understand why the United States was willing to act as punatively as was possible at the time, even if it the argument that it was not completely necessary historically has some merit.

Given more time I am sure we can upstage WWII...I have full confidence in the stupidity of mankind.

This is a fantastic read from the evil NSA no less.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.

Bravo sir, nicely-well-done.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Wrong. The Japanese were willing to surrender as early as May, 1945 with the only stipulation being that they wanted to keep their Emporer. This didn't fit Truman's definition of "unconditional surrender". They dropped the bombs, and still wound up allowing Japan to keep its Emporer.

So in effect, Truman actually accepted the Japanese terms of surrender, but dropped the bombs anyway. You can read any number of sources from Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff Admiral William Leahy, to Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, to U.S. Fleet and Naval Operations chairman Ernest J. King, to Eisenhower who all agreed that the Japanese had already been defeated, and it was completely unnecessary to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Make no mistake - the decision to use the bomb was political, and not based out of concern for the military.

They may have said they wanted to surrender, but they were trying to break the Soviet & American alliance to bring the Russians onto their side. They were by no means finished.

They had no illusions about winning the war they just wanted to stop fighting it. They hoped to inflict so many casualties on the Americans that we would sign an armistice. They still had an airforce and a huge army. They hadn't run out of bullets either. Alot of their industry had been moved underground because we had firebombed them long before we used nuclear weapons. Had they known we only had two they might not have even surrendered then.

When I went to the peace museum in Hiroshima they stated the reasons that we dropped the bomb. It was to reduce our casualties and to end the war. The Japanese are very upfront about this and I don't understand why they would lie about an event that they experienced. The officers I spoke with in the Japanese Defense Forces came to the same conclusion.

You say that the dropping of the Atom bombs was just a political move but since when has war been non-political? War isn't just mindless bloodshed. It's economic, political, and psychological.

Droping an atom bomb on the Japanese was all of those. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were industrial cities. Hiroshima is a major port. Why spend millions on a weapons program and not see if it's viable, especially when you're in a major war and you're already broke? Why let the Japanese go home thinking they really hadn't been defeated like the Germans did in 1918? Why let the Japanese military / political leadership stay in power so they could plot and scheme like the Germans did?

Truman was an artillery officer during the First World War and understood the difference between a surrender and an armistice. In the end it was the Russians who finished them off not the A-bombs.