Hiroshima

[Metropolis]

they might of been days away from their own atomic bomb.

No.

[standardstate]

As if there was any way of knowing that.

Do my knowledge no one at the time expressed any fear that the japanese were close to building a bomb. For one thing, they had no reliable source for uranium - what were they going to build the bomb out of?

People said the same thing about Saddam Hussein and then were flabbergasted to discover he had only been months away.

You might want to check on this. Saddam was nowhere close to having the bomb.

Trying to use nukes is just as bad as using them.

Well...no. In any case, since the japanese were not trying to use nukes, what does it matter?

In a word, yes, although the obvious difference is that terrorists do it out of hate and sadism whereas I assume our motive would be coercive interrogation.

Really? We are justified in beheading terrorists? Sad sad sad. I thought we were better than our enemies. Guess that isn't the way you see things.

What is this, an Abott & Costello routine? They surrendered because they saw the awesome power the U.S. was willing to unleash on their country. The argument that they would have surrendered without them is YOURS.

My argument was that they might have surrendered if the us had dropped a demonstration bomb. For that mater, they might well have surrendered if the bomb had not been used. There's no way to rewind history and see.

[Vai]

Do my knowledge no one at the time expressed any fear that the japanese were close to building a bomb. For one thing, they had no reliable source for uranium - what were they going to build the bomb out of?

Obviously they could get it from their allies in Germany. There was also quite a supply in Korea.

You might want to check on this. Saddam was nowhere close to having the bomb.

You are more ignorant than I thought. After Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981 he continued the program covertly and no one knew how far along it was until after the Gulf War.

Well...no. In any case, since the japanese were not trying to use nukes, what does it matter?

What? Of course they were.

Really? We are justified in beheading terrorists? Sad sad sad. I thought we were better than our enemies. Guess that isn't the way you see things.

I assumed you were just being rhetorical. No, I don't advocate any beheadings.

My argument was that they might have surrendered if the us had dropped a demonstration bomb. For that mater, they might well have surrendered if the bomb had not been used. There's no way to rewind history and see.

They did do a demonstration. On Hiroshima. I for one am glad we dropped the bomb rather than invade the mainland or submit to their unacceptable terms of surrender. The war ended, Japan went from an imperial war machine to a constitutional democracy and became one of the greatest economic miracles in history. America has nothing to apologize for.

[Predius]

My argument was that they might have surrendered if the us had dropped a demonstration bomb. For that mater, they might well have surrendered if the bomb had not been used. There's no way to rewind history and see.

They did drop the demonstration bomb, but it wasn't for the Emperor of Japan.

It was Stalin.

[standardstate]

Obviously they could get it from their allies in Germany. There was also quite a supply in Korea.

Do you simply post whatever random thought pops in your head? The germans would ship the japanese uranium? Right...

You are more ignorant than I thought. After Israel bombed the Osirak reactor in 1981 he continued the program covertly and no one knew how far along it was until after the Gulf War.

At that point, they knew how far along he was - not very.

What? Of course they were.

Some evidence might be nice at this point. I know you are impressed by your opinion - others might not be.

I assumed you were just being rhetorical. No, I don't advocate any beheadings.

Rhetorical? No. You were the one who posted the following...

*****

But let's take your argument at face value. Terrorists torture and behead their victims - so does that justify the us torturing and beheading terrorist prisoners?

In a word, yes

*****

If you don't mean yes, perhaps you should choose a different word - no, for example.

They did do a demonstration. On Hiroshima.

Don't be deliberately stupid - it is simply too easy to confuse those few times with your more common unintentional stupidity.

I for one am glad we dropped the bomb rather than invade the mainland or submit to their unacceptable terms of surrender.

So many dumb things in such a short post.

You have set up a false choice here - the choice was not bomb hiroshima or invade the mainland. A demonstration (a true demonstration) was one alternative, a blocade was a second one, and I suspect others were also possible.

Further, the us was in no danger of having to surrender to japan in late 1945. Pick up a history book...

The war ended, Japan went from an imperial war machine to a constitutional democracy and became one of the greatest economic miracles in history. America has nothing to apologize for.

...except the murder of a few hundred thousand civilians.

[MerlinHCMK3]

the use of the A bomb on those japanese cities was merely a show off by the americans
"hey look at us we kick ass! Take that you commie b******s!" thats how i see it. Pearl harbour was bad yes but how could you not know the entire sodding jappy navy was heading towards you??

[Vai]

Do you simply post whatever random thought pops in your head? The germans would ship the japanese uranium? Right...

They did, stupid. That's what allies do, see. One German sub full of uranium was even commandeered by the Americans after Germany surrendered in May 1945. The Japanese officers onboard were alllowed to commit suicide.

At that point, they knew how far along he was - not very.

Actually, after the program went underground they could have made six bombs a year given the necessary supplies. Better safe than sorry, anyway.

Some evidence might be nice at this point. I know you are impressed by your opinion - others might not be.

I'm confused -- are you asking for proof that Japan had an atomic weapons program? Surely you aren't that ignorant?

Don't be deliberately stupid - it is simply too easy to confuse those few times with your more common unintentional stupidity.

That's ironic, coming from you. If Hiroshima wasn't a military target then it was a demonstration. It's called psychological warfare and it is why Tokyo, Dresden, and London were ruthlessly bombed in WWII.

You have set up a false choice here - the choice was not bomb hiroshima or invade the mainland. A demonstration (a true demonstration) was one alternative, a blocade was a second one, and I suspect others were also possible.

Again, I think they only had two or three bombs. You don't think they had been a blockade the entire time?

Further, the us was in no danger of having to surrender to japan in late 1945. Pick up a history book...

Oh my God. You are insufferable. JAPAN tried to set the terms of their surrender, but we wanted an unconditional one.

...except the murder of a few hundred thousand civilians.

Sorry that it had to happen, but not that it happened.

[Saintsfan]

The Emporer of Japan insisted that it was the attacks of the Russians, not the atomic bombs that led to Japans surrender

[standardstate]

They did, stupid. That's what allies do, see. One German sub full of uranium was even commandeered by the Americans after Germany surrendered in May 1945. The Japanese officers onboard were alllowed to commit suicide.

Evidence would be appropriate at this point. Also, how much uranium is there in a "full" submarine? And some context please - what was the impact of this transfer of uranium, if in fact it occurred?

Actually, after the program went underground they could have made six bombs a year given the necessary supplies.

Actually, given the "necessary supplies" I could build six bombs a year.

Better safe than sorry, anyway.

Does that apply to the present war in iraq? I can find the families of 2500+ americans who might argue that their sorrow is greater than that which would have occurred if the us had not invaded.

I'm confused -- are you asking for proof that Japan had an atomic weapons program? Surely you aren't that ignorant?

You claimed that iraq was on the verge of building nuclear weapons. I was asking for evidence to support this claim. Alternatively, you can prove you are the knowledge cube...

That's ironic, coming from you. If Hiroshima wasn't a military target then it was a demonstration. It's called psychological warfare and it is why Tokyo, Dresden, and London were ruthlessly bombed in WWII.

An interesting approach - defending the murder of civilians in hiroshima based on the fact that civilians were murdered in tokyo, dresden, and london. Kind of like ted bundy defending his later murders based on the fact that they were not the first he had committed.

In any case, it was clear in my initial remark that "demonstration" referred to the use of a nuke in a way that its power was demonstrated without killing large numbers of people.

I do, however, take back my remark about you being "deliberately stupid". I'm now convinced you simply can't help it.

Again, I think they only had two or three bombs. You don't think they had been a blockade the entire time?

There was. Of course that is irrelevant to my claim that there were more than two strategies the us could have used to get japan to surrender. A continuation of the blocade might of worked. Or perhaps not - it doesn't matter, because the fact that it was a possible alternative shows that your claim that there were only two choices was wrong...

Oh my God. You are insufferable. JAPAN tried to set the terms of their surrender, but we wanted an unconditional one.

Here is what you originally posted...

I for one am glad we dropped the bomb rather than invade the mainland or submit to their unacceptable terms of surrender.

I can't be blamed for your being unclear. I am curious as to which part of their surrender offer you found "unacceptable"...

Sorry that it had to happen, but not that it happened.

What's the murder of a few hundred thousand people, none of whom are your relatives, in the grand scheme of things...right?

[Saintsfan]

[quote=standardstate;3344647] I am curious as to which part of their surrender offer you found "unacceptable"...
quote]

Its not directed at me but anyway - the one part that i found unacceptable in Japans terms of surrender is the fact that Japan didn't want anyone in its army to be charged with war crimes.

[standardstate]

[quote=Saintsfan;3345111]

I am curious as to which part of their surrender offer you found "unacceptable"...
quote]

Its not directed at me but anyway - the one part that i found unacceptable in Japans terms of surrender is the fact that Japan didn't want anyone in its army to be charged with war crimes.

Was that a condition?

Well...I don't think the war crime trials in japan were completely fair. There were a few people sentenced to death who were likely not deserving of that sentence.

I think the japanese also wanted some guarantees regarding the status of the emperor.

I was really curious about whether or not vai was familiar enough with the proposed surrender terms to be able to make the statement he made. My guess was that he was not. He now has had time to google it, I suppose...

[Vai]

Evidence would be appropriate at this point. Also, how much uranium is there in a "full" submarine? And some context please - what was the impact of this transfer of uranium, if in fact it occurred?

You are aware of search engines, right? Use them. And your insipid questions aren't going to take any attention away from the fact that you didn't even realize the Nazis were helping Japan build an a-bomb.

Actually, given the "necessary supplies" I could build six bombs a year.

More semantics. You're pathetic.

Does that apply to the present war in iraq? I can find the families of 2500+ americans who might argue that their sorrow is greater than that which would have occurred if the us had not invaded.

Of course it does. Iraq is now definitely disarmed. Without the invasion we wouldn't have access to the literally millions of files waiting to be translated and gleaned of information such as Saddam trying to buy missile systems right off the shelf from North Korea in the months prior to the war. Again, your distraction questions aren't doing you any favors. Israel decided (correctly) that it wasn't worth letting Iraq's nuclear program go any further and bombed their reactor.

You claimed that iraq was on the verge of building nuclear weapons. I was asking for evidence to support this claim. Alternatively, you can prove you are the knowledge cube...

Google. Use it. Love it.

An interesting approach - defending the murder of civilians in hiroshima based on the fact that civilians were murdered in tokyo, dresden, and london. Kind of like ted bundy defending his later murders based on the fact that they were not the first he had committed.

Uh, no. I explained how those bombings were demonstrations intended to demoralize the public. You are dense.

In any case, it was clear in my initial remark that "demonstration" referred to the use of a nuke in a way that its power was demonstrated without killing large numbers of people.

And I was even clearer on how dumb an idea that is.

There was. Of course that is irrelevant to my claim that there were more than two strategies the us could have used to get japan to surrender. A continuation of the blocade might of worked. Or perhaps not - it doesn't matter, because the fact that it was a possible alternative shows that your claim that there were only two choices was wrong...

Aliens could have blasted Kyushu with ray guns from space, that's another possibility. We could have set off the nukes in the ocean and engulfed them in tidal waves. That's a possible alternative.

I can't be blamed for your being unclear. I am curious as to which part of their surrender offer you found "unacceptable"...

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know what their terms were rather than disagree with me and appear to approve of their terms. I oppose all four: that there be no occupation, that the Imperial Government would remain and be responsible for demilitarization and war crimes prosecution.

What's the murder of a few hundred thousand people, none of whom are your relatives, in the grand scheme of things...right?

Better them than a few hundred thousand American GIs? God damn right.

[standardstate]

You are aware of search engines, right? Use them.

It's not my job to make your case for you. That remains true even if you lack the ability to do so yourself.

And your insipid questions aren't going to take any attention away from the fact that you didn't even realize the Nazis were helping Japan build an a-bomb.

Hmmm...still no reference to this.

Let me ask you...how did that work out? How many a-bombs did the japanese build? For that matter, how many did the germans build?

More semantics. You're pathetic.

Give me two hemispheres of u-235, conventional explosives, a neutron primer, and a gun barrel and I could indeed build an atomic bomb.

Let me help you. Try reading richard rhodes book The Making of the Atomic Bomb and you will see how simple making a uranium bomb really is - if you have the "necessary supplies". He also does a good job of discussing the german and japanese a-bomb programs (such as they were).

Just out of curiousity, do you know what the word "semantics" means? Hard to say, given your incorrect use of the word above.

Of course it does. Iraq is now definitely disarmed. Without the invasion we wouldn't have access to the literally millions of files waiting to be translated and gleaned of information such as Saddam trying to buy missile systems right off the shelf from North Korea in the months prior to the war.

Focus, vai.

Your claim was that iraq was on the verge of building its own atomic weapons, not that it was thinking about buying missiles from north korea.

Even president bush admits iraq had no wmds. Maybe it is time for you to do the same.

Again, your distraction questions aren't doing you any favors. Israel decided (correctly) that it wasn't worth letting Iraq's nuclear program go any further and bombed their reactor.

Indeed. I guess israel wanted to be the only middle eastern nation with nukes.

Google. Use it. Love it.

Let's see. You make claims without providing evidence to back them up, and then pass on the responsibility of doing so to me. Is that how it works?

Can I play? Let's try this. japan was never going to be able to build atomic weapons because the us, using its time travel capabilities, would have altered history to prevent it from happening.

Now, your job...google. Use it. Love it. (try googling "philadelphia experiment").

Uh, no. I explained how those bombings were demonstrations intended to demoralize the public. You are dense.

What exactly was the firebombing of tokyo "demonstrating"? That wood and paper houses burn well? That one can kill tens of thousands of civilians in a massive bombing raid.

Add "demonstration" to the list of words you should look up. google...use it...love it.

And I was even clearer on how dumb an idea that is.

I'll need more than your word on that - particularly since many of the scientists who worked on developing the first atomic bomb (people that I am guessing might even be a bit smarter than you) thought a demonstration was worth doing (a real demonstration - not a demonstration of how many civilians could be murdered by one bomb).

Aliens could have blasted Kyushu with ray guns from space, that's another possibility. We could have set off the nukes in the ocean and engulfed them in tidal waves. That's a possible alternative.

of course, a continuation of the blocade happened to be one alternative the us considered. Glad you've included other alternatives, because any alternative to the two you limited yourself to simply proves your "two choices" argument was wrong.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you simply don't know what their terms were

Problems with the english language? All I asked was what parts of the japanese surrender proposal(s) you found unacceptable. What that has to do with my knowledge of those terms is a puzzle...but hardly the only puzzling remark you have made.

rather than disagree with me and appear to approve of their terms. I oppose all four: that there be no occupation, that the Imperial Government would remain and be responsible for demilitarization and war crimes prosecution.

You are aware that at different times the japanese had different or additional terms to the ones you've listed above...right? But at least you finally gave a specific and passably rational answer to a specific question. Guess your medications kicked in.

Better them than a few hundred thousand American GIs? God damn right.

Another false dichotomy. At least you remain consistent...

EDIT: Since I was bored I decided to look into vai's unusual theories regarding the japanese atomic bomb project. They all seem to trace back to a book written by Robert K. Wilcox, a journalist (not a history professor, as I first posted - that was an error in one of the references I looked at). He contends that the japanese a-bomb project had made significant progress towards building a bomb, and in fact may have detonated a small atomic weapon in korea shortly before the hiroshima bombing.

For a more sober assessment of the japanese bomb project (and of robert wilcox)you can go to the following ...

http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/050724.shtml

Bottom line - if something appears on the web, that doesn't make it true - even if you googled it!

[Vai]

It's not my job to make your case for you. That remains true even if you lack the ability to do so yourself.

It's not my job to spoon-feed you information you should already be aware of.

Hmmm...still no reference to this.

Remember our pal Google? "Japanese atomic program" gives this link at the top: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

Let me ask you...how did that work out? How many a-bombs did the japanese build? For that matter, how many did the germans build?

Zero. Luckily, they were defeated before they had the chance, by America's bombs in Japan's case.

Give me two hemispheres of u-235, conventional explosives, a neutron primer, and a gun barrel and I could indeed build an atomic bomb.

Good for you.

Let me help you. Try reading richard rhodes book The Making of the Atomic Bomb and you will see how simple making a uranium bomb really is - if you have the "necessary supplies". He also does a good job of discussing the german and japanese a-bomb programs (such as they were).

Obviously he doesn't discuss it enough if he didn't mention the Nazis delivering uranium to Japan.

Just out of curiousity, do you know what the word "semantics" means? Hard to say, given your incorrect use of the word above.

It is essentially the study of language and syntax, but in that context it means "trifling argument over interpretation of words." Hardly incorrect.

Your claim was that iraq was on the verge of building its own atomic weapons, not that it was thinking about buying missiles from north korea.

You have a short attention span. I first mentioned Iraq to exemplify the danger of ignoring potential nuclear threats as you suggested the U.S. ought have in regards to Japan. I said that in 1981 Israel launched a preventative strike against Iraq's Osirak reactor, which prompted Hussein to continue his program covertly, where it proceeded much quicker. It wasn't until after the Gulf War that anyone had realized how far along he had been. The 2003 invasion has nothing to do with it. The North Korea comment was in response to a separate, tangential question (which seems to be your signature).

Indeed. I guess israel wanted to be the only middle eastern nation with nukes.

Naturally.

Let's see. You make claims without providing evidence to back them up, and then pass on the responsibility of doing so to me. Is that how it works?

The way it "works" is that you don't haplessly try to debate subjects about which you are clearly underinformed.

What exactly was the firebombing of tokyo "demonstrating"? That wood and paper houses burn well? That one can kill tens of thousands of civilians in a massive bombing raid.

Precisely.

I'll need more than your word on that - particularly since many of the scientists who worked on developing the first atomic bomb (people that I am guessing might even be a bit smarter than you) thought a demonstration was worth doing (a real demonstration - not a demonstration of how many civilians could be murdered by one bomb).

Now THERE'S something I'll want a source for. Men who spent countless months and billions of dollars to only end up producing 3 bombs by August 1945 recommended we waste one of them on a "demonstration"? Smells like bullshit.

of course, a continuation of the blocade happened to be one alternative the us considered. Glad you've included other alternatives, because any alternative to the two you limited yourself to simply proves your "two choices" argument was wrong.

They weren't seriously considered. It was either invade the country and face stiff opposition or end the war with the push of a button.

Problems with the english language? All I asked was what parts of the japanese surrender proposal(s) you found unacceptable. What that has to do with my knowledge of those terms is a puzzle...but hardly the only puzzling remark you have made.

By asking which terms I disapproved of it was clear that you didn't know what they were. Otherwise you needn't have asked me at all. I wouldn't accept their terms of surrender while also defending bombing them.

You are aware that at different times the japanese had different or additional terms to the ones you've listed above...right? But at least you finally gave a specific and passably rational answer to a specific question. Guess your medications kicked in.

You are aware that you are pulling stuff out of your ass at this point...right? I am. Their terms were in response to the Potsdam Declaration delivered in late July. They offered their four ridiculous addendums between that time and Hiroshima.

EDIT: Since I was bored I decided to look into vai's unusual theories regarding the japanese atomic bomb project. They all seem to trace back to a book written by Robert K. Wilcox, a history professor (much to my surprise) at Bowling Green State University (the harvard of bowling green). He contends that the japanese a-bomb project had made significant progress towards building a bomb, and in fact may have detonated a small atomic weapon in korea shortly before the hiroshima bombing.

For a more sober assessment of the japanese bomb project (and of robert wilcox)you can go to the following ...

http://www.sonic.net/~bstone/archives/050724.shtml

Bottom line - if something appears on the web, that doesn't make it true - even if you googled it!

For starters, the only Robert Wilcox I know was a Hawaiian nationalist over a hundred years ago. Secondly, I haven't been defending Hiroshima because the Japanese nuclear threat was imminent. Even if they had never come close, just the fact that they tried and were willing is enough. Way to waste your time, dumbass.

[Predius]

Its not directed at me but anyway - the one part that i found unacceptable in Japans terms of surrender is the fact that Japan didn't want anyone in its army to be charged with war crimes.

Was Douglas MacArthur charged of war crimes?

It's not my job to spoon-feed you information you should already be aware of.

You mean you don't know about the great Alien landing of the 1970s? You should!

Remember our pal Google? "Japanese atomic program" gives this link at the top: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

Ah, so they intercepted a sub with one fifth of the needed Uranium needed for one bomb, and they found things which could be used to construct an atomic bomb. Not only is the fact that it's quite hard to believe that they could actually manage to build an atom bomb, but that they could actually go all the way to the US West Coast and bomb a city is out of the question.

Zero. Luckily, they were defeated before they had the chance, by America's bombs in Japan's case.

That's a truism. Of course, Saddam could build WMDs, and now he can't. That means that thanks to Prez Bush, the world is now safe from WMDs.

Obviously he doesn't discuss it enough if he didn't mention the Nazis delivering uranium to Japan.

And the Nazis were gone by 1945. Where was Hitler going to send uranium from? From Shambala?

It is essentially the study of language and syntax, but in that context it means "trifling argument over interpretation of words." Hardly incorrect.

Exactly, and your call on him debating over semantics was wrong. You said that the Japanese could build a nuclear bomb given the necessary supplies. He stated that everyone could build a bomb, given the necessary supplies. The Japanese didn't have the necessary supplies.

You have a short attention span. I first mentioned Iraq to exemplify the danger of ignoring potential nuclear threats as you suggested the U.S. ought have in regards to Japan. I said that in 1981 Israel launched a preventative strike against Iraq's Osirak reactor, which prompted Hussein to continue his program covertly, where it proceeded much quicker. It wasn't until after the Gulf War that anyone had realized how far along he had been. The 2003 invasion has nothing to do with it. The North Korea comment was in response to a separate, tangential question (which seems to be your signature).

So, Iraq took more than 10 years to make a program which went nowhere, in the 80s.

And Japan was supposed to do this, while being blockaded, how exactly?

The way it "works" is that you don't haplessly try to debate subjects about which you are clearly underinformed.

If I ever become a MP or Congressman, it'll be easy to win debates. I'll just tell everyone they're underinformed, and thus unable to debate.

Precisely.

And the point of that was? I'm sure that the Japanese knew that people die when they're bombed.

Now THERE'S something I'll want a source for. Men who spent countless months and billions of dollars to only end up producing 3 bombs by August 1945 recommended we waste one of them on a "demonstration"? Smells like bullshit.

You do realise the power in an atom bomb, right? It's not the fire, it's the intimidation.

And scientists aren't usually into that whole, killing thousands of people over no real reason deals.

They weren't seriously considered. It was either invade the country and face stiff opposition or end the war with the push of a button.

You seriously overestimate the power of the antiwar movement of the time. Most people had no idea the US had a bomb, anyway.

You are aware that you are pulling stuff out of your ass at this point...right? I am. Their terms were in response to the Potsdam Declaration delivered in late July. They offered their four ridiculous addendums between that time and Hiroshima.

“I believe the Joint Proclamation by the three countries is nothing but a rehash of the Cairo Declaration. As for the Government, it does not find any imporant value in it and there is no other recourse but to ignore [mokusatsu] it entirely and resolutely fight for the successful conclusion of the war.”

For starters, the only Robert Wilcox I know was a Hawaiian nationalist over a hundred years ago. Secondly, I haven't been defending Hiroshima because the Japanese nuclear threat was imminent. Even if they had never come close, just the fact that they tried and were willing is enough. Way to waste your time, dumbass.

Ding ding. Don't know the subject? You shouldn't be debating.

Oh, and ad Hominem.