Hiroshima: the Crime that keeps on paying

Hiroshima doesn't even exist. Everyone knows that an atomic warhead creates an atomic wasteland for a thousand years. This is just like the moon landing hoax.

 

Likely so. Good of you to recognize this.

The "initiative" that was thrown out the window almost immediately after it was agreed to?
Meaningless idealistic nonsense, a casualty of total war.

Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
The USAAF did not bomb undefended cities - all German and Japanese cities had fighter and AAA defenses.

 

Held almost a year of war. Large number of civilian lives saved is nonsense? Well depends on point of view… Anyhow, it worked, and it was based on art25 but was much more strict. Well it was based on previous addition of bombing agreement that was based on art25.
And the war was not total. Only the US used to destroy large cities without regard to whom they wear killing. All other sides had more censes. The chemical weapons wear not used, practically (as they could). Cities wear not cleansed like they wear in medieval ages, red cross was respected, sometimes, e.t.c.

- - - Updated - - -

Pounding into submission – no problem
Mass collateral murder while pounding into submission – problem.

 

It was not a good thing, but it objectively was a justified action.

 

Naw, not even close. They attacked soldiers. In return we killed hundreds of thousands of civilians that may not have wanted any part of their government's war. Not just.

 

Casualties are inevitability in war. It's a truth. Something civilians don't want to hear, but something they all know is true.
Sorry guy.

 

Most of one year, out of 6. Woo.

If there was ever a total war, it was WW2.

Article 25: The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
The USAAF did not bomb undefended cities - all German and Japanese cities had fighter and AAA defenses.

 

They attacked civilians as well in the same manner just without nukes

 

By a military point of view the nuclear bombing was justified, USA had a powerful weapon that could paralyze its Japan's will to fight due to the weapon's destructiveness, when Japan could do nothing more than sit helpless till it turned into dust, so instead of taking too many casualties for a war that would be won anyway, it just put its weapon in use.
And since i don't believe in a fully rational belief theory it may have been a lifesaving act too in the long run by informing both Japan of its futile effort to keep sacrificing its population to the last man and its world antagonist USSR of not starting a new world war for western Europe.
On the other side, from a moral point of view as a single action per se , it was an attack against innocent civilians too, the first and only attack ever recorded in human history. On the moral ground USA stands very low since then, when talking for example about the start of a nuclear war from another country(Russia, China, North Korea, etc), just because of simple recorded historically facts.

 

Far more Japanese died in the months of incendiary raids on Japanese cities than in the two atomic attacks, and more property was destroyed.
If the nuclear attacks were immoral, than so were the conventional attacks.

 

Seeing as the atomic attacks were completely unnecessary they were immoral. At least according to the joint chiefs

 

Sometimes a certain substance is called “manure”, it is healthy, and nice, and feeds the world.
Sometimes the very same substance is called “(*)(*)(*)(*)” (Or cow poo, if the moderators permit).
The difference is in placement and time.

I am, with the part of population that considers Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing to be “(*)(*)(*)(*)”.
My opinion is backed by my limited knowledge of history, my very limited understanding of the sociological process that went in that time, but what is possibly most important, by active political and sociological figures of that time: World and US major war and gov leaders, US bombing committee, majority of population of planet Earth.



As far as I understand you have Mr. Truman on your side.

>>>If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.<<<
—&#8201;Harry Truman, one week after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in 1941

Good luck to you two

 

Yep. An entire year. No matter. Just pointing out that you should not rely on your knowledge alone. You should always double-check the data you find or you plan to use. Otherwise, what is the point in all these discussions?

Nah. Was pretty vegetarian compared to Alexander the great, Atilla or Chingizid family. Imagine Fau1 loaded with Iprit falling on New York. And it was easy to achive.

 

Consider the following. Then research the Japanese decision to surrender after Nagasaki, and the attempted military coup to stop the surrender.

&#8220;Japan's secret plans to build its own atom bomb
have resurfaced with the uncovering of a dossier
smuggled out of the country at the end of the
Second World War.

The papers, containing crude diagrams for a small
nuclear weapon, were part of a six-year effort by
military scientists to make the country the
world's first nuclear power.

According to yesterday's Asahi newspaper, the
American widow of a Japanese researcher, who fled
to the US with the document in 1945, has returned
it to the Institute of Physical and Chemical
Research, where he worked during the war. The
researcher, Kazuo Kuroda, who later became a
professor at the University of Arkansas, kept the
document secret for half a century until his
death in America in April last year.&#8221; Independent, UK, Japan was 'days away from test' of A-bomb, By David McNeill in Tokyo, 05 August 2002 .

 

Tell me now what drugs you're on

 

Willing to bet that every soldier, marine and sailor preparing to invade mainland Japan disagrees with you.
Their families, too.

 

4th rate sideshows, each - at best.

 

The joint chiefs agreed with him....but what do they know

 

1. We know that nuking the cities have not affected surrender of Japan. (From opinions of US major war leaders and bombing survey)
2. This means, that mass murder of Japan civilians in Hiroshima and Nagaski by means of nuclear bombardment have not affected surrender of Japan.
3. This means, that mass murder of Japan civilians in Hiroshima and Nagaski by means of nuclear bombardment had no military necessity.
4. You are stating, that US marines and sailors preparing to invade Jap mainland (and members of their families) approve mass murder of Japan civilians with no military necessity.
I seriously doubt that. And I see no proofs to your point of view.

We are not arguing about length of our reproductive organs here (at least I am not). We are talking about brutality of ww2 versus brutality of previous wars in respect to laws and practice of war.

- - - Updated - - -

You do not expect me to share, do you?

 

Decision is unquestionable, it was a blow, it was hard, the question is would they surrender without it, before mainland invasion. We know the answer – yes.
Military coups and simple insubordination ran from top to bottom. As far as I was told, according to bushido, there is no option of surrender, if you surrender, you are loosing your status of a human, and become a talking animal. Surrender was not an option for Jap military.

Plan and a crude diagram is nice, but not sufficient to make a Nuke.
You need a stable supply of uranium, you need budget, you need a coalition of scientists and manufacturers, you need centrifuge cascades of thousands of units, (Manhattan consumed 13300 tons of silver when they went to electromagnetic separation), you need heavy water. Thousands and thousands of workers, thousands of scientists, (all of them are from the top of the list), huge assets, and no guaranty that it will work in the end. Japan had no chance to afford the project.

 

Nuking the cities shows the world just how dangerous a nuclear powered country is. Doing that was a great deterrent for a third world war. It was more than an attempt to win the second. Doing that (which was necessary) said two things:

1. We're ending this once and for all. You must surrender now (they did not)
2. We're making sure our enemies know just how (*)(*)(*)(*)ed they'll be if they try a conventional war against us

Good move. Glad it happened.

 

Clearly surender was an option as they surrendered. Curtis Lemay said they were less than 2 weeks away from surrender

 

Once you have a critical mass of U235 the rest is relatively simple. Little Boy was not even tested.

 

Post 146

 

Post 146 is an argument to eliminate the army and just use nuclear weapons because they work so well. You would be out of a job. LOL