Can Iran be trusted?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-03-2015, 07:26 AM
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
(26-03-2015 11:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid targets under all contemporary reasoning...

Contemporary reasoning being the barbaric notion that if you kill enough non-combatant civilians, the remaining citizens will turn against their government, or their government will give up.

But the real reason the atom bombs were dropped on Japan was that the U.S. government wanted to test the effect they'd have on real cities. This is why, after Hiroshima, the U.S. almost immediately bombed Nagasaki, without giving the Japanese government enough time to absorb the horror and react. The two bombs were made of different materials, and the government wanted to test them both.

Your point about Dresden and the other civilian cities destroyed with regular bombs is valid. The real issue is that governments are made up of fucks who have no concern for anything but their own power, who will happily murder unarmed civilians in cold blood to accomplish political ends.

War is nothing but terrorism when it's conducted by a government.

If I believed in God, which I do not, I would say that his non-interference when people have wars, is proof that he is one sick, psychotic motherfucker who gets his rocks off by watching children ripped apart and burned alive by bullets and bombs.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 07:31 AM
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
I now forget which was which but one of the two Japanese cities we nuked had no military significance and no manufacturing capability. It wasn't a legitimate target by any accepted definition.

As for why we did it, i don't believe in the test theory. We had already tested both bombs in the New Mexico dessert. I think we wanted to make sure Stalin knew e could not only build one bomb, we could build two. He had no idea we didn't have anymore.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 07:42 AM
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
(27-03-2015 07:31 AM)BnW Wrote:  I now forget which was which but one of the two Japanese cities we nuked had no military significance and no manufacturing capability. It wasn't a legitimate target by any accepted definition.

Yet the facts don't appear support that:

Wikipedia Wrote:Hiroshima:
At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military units were located nearby, the most important of which was the headquarters of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan,[102] and was located in Hiroshima Castle. Hata's command consisted of some 400,000 men, most of whom were on Kyushu where an Allied invasion was correctly anticipated.

Nagasaki:
The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry.[167] Although an important industrial city, Nagasaki had been spared from firebombing because its geography made it difficult to locate at night with AN/APQ-13 radar.

Quote:As for why we did it, i don't believe in the test theory. We had already tested both bombs in the New Mexico dessert. I think we wanted to make sure Stalin knew e could not only build one bomb, we could build two. He had no idea we didn't have anymore.

The answer is probably not one simple one, but Truman said he wanted to end the war without having to invade Japan and sustain up to 1,000,000 U.S. casualties.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
27-03-2015, 09:09 AM
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
IIRC, The whole bomb's being dropped could have been prevented had the US simply allowed the Emperor in Japan to stay. The Japanese did want peace near the end but they didn't want unconditional peace. Meanwhile the Allies were also talking with the Soviets who were getting ready to attack Manchuria and Japanese occupied China. So had Truman agreed to a modified peace deal the bombs wouldn't have had to be dropped.
However there is the political side to it because Truman didn't want to the Soviets to attack Japan after seeing the complications they cases in Europe. So there was a sense of urgency. So the only way he could get what he wanted, that being the peace deal he wanted and for the war to end before the Soviets could attack Japan, was to drop the bombs.

I don't think it was so much anything like to threaten Stalin or whatever. Stalin knew about the successful testing of atomic weapons prior to them being dropped on Japan. I think they were dropped simply so the US could get the peace deal IT wanted and for the war to end before the Soviets could get involved and complicate things.

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-03-2015, 01:27 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2015 01:42 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
(27-03-2015 07:26 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(26-03-2015 11:00 AM)cjlr Wrote:  ... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid targets under all contemporary reasoning...

Contemporary reasoning being the barbaric notion that if you kill enough non-combatant civilians, the remaining citizens will turn against their government, or their government will give up.

No. Contemporary reasoning being that militarised cities and industrial centres were valid targets.

(27-03-2015 07:26 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  But the real reason the atom bombs were dropped on Japan was that the U.S. government wanted to test the effect they'd have on real cities. This is why, after Hiroshima, the U.S. almost immediately bombed Nagasaki, without giving the Japanese government enough time to absorb the horror and react. The two bombs were made of different materials, and the government wanted to test them both.

False. The uranium bomb was so simple it didn't need a test. The plutonium bomb had been tested at Trinity before either was dropped.

The United States warned the Japanese government before beginning major "conventional" air raids (not to repeat my point that firebombing was just as new as nuclear weapons, so the term is hilariously inapropos for the 1940s). The United States warned the Japanese government before dropping the first atomic bomb. The United States warned the Japanese government before dropping the second bomb.

Even then there was almost a military coup by hardliners in Tokyo after both had been used.

Hundreds of millions across east and south-east Asia remained under horrific Japanese occupation for every day the war continued. But I guess starving Indonesian slave labourers aren't as sexy as mushroom clouds.

(27-03-2015 07:26 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Your point about Dresden and the other civilian cities destroyed with regular bombs is valid. The real issue is that governments are made up of fucks who have no concern for anything but their own power, who will happily murder unarmed civilians in cold blood to accomplish political ends.

People are people. What's magic dividing line between normal people like you and me and the apparently psychotic mass-murderers you think run the show? Not least of all where that line lies in a democracy?

I note you only mention Dresden, another one "we" did. What of the acts of the nations who, you know, started the war? I don't think I should have to tell you what would have happened if states like Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan weren't opposed.
(hint: all the genocides)

(27-03-2015 07:26 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  War is nothing but terrorism when it's conducted by a government.

So, you would maintain that all war - even defensive war - is "nothing but terrorism"?

(27-03-2015 07:26 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  If I believed in God, which I do not, I would say that his non-interference when people have wars, is proof that he is one sick, psychotic motherfucker who gets his rocks off by watching children ripped apart and burned alive by bullets and bombs.

Have you read the old testament?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2015, 01:37 PM (This post was last modified: 27-03-2015 02:30 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
(27-03-2015 09:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  IIRC, The whole bomb's being dropped could have been prevented had the US simply allowed the Emperor in Japan to stay. The Japanese did want peace near the end but they didn't want unconditional peace.

You recall incorrectly. They wanted recognition of their pre-1941 conquests and a continued free hand in China, along with no war guilt, no reparations, and no demilitarisation.
(that the Potsdam declaration of late July didn't mention the Emperor at all was rather an oversight of the Allied group who issued it, in hindsight, but many among the Japanese command was completely unwilling to accept any of the other terms regardless)

There were a few Japanese ambassadors who tried - on their own initiative - to sound out conditions in the summer of 1945. They were not endorsed by the junta at home.

(27-03-2015 09:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Meanwhile the Allies were also talking with the Soviets who were getting ready to attack Manchuria and Japanese occupied China. So had Truman agreed to a modified peace deal the bombs wouldn't have had to be dropped.

Which ended up being simultaneous with the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, but only due to coincidental alignment of two of the largest operations in all of human history.

(27-03-2015 09:09 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  However there is the political side to it because Truman didn't want to the Soviets to attack Japan after seeing the complications they cases in Europe. So there was a sense of urgency. So the only way he could get what he wanted, that being the peace deal he wanted and for the war to end before the Soviets could attack Japan, was to drop the bombs.

I don't think it was so much anything like to threaten Stalin or whatever. Stalin knew about the successful testing of atomic weapons prior to them being dropped on Japan. I think they were dropped simply so the US could get the peace deal IT wanted and for the war to end before the Soviets could get involved and complicate things.

The Americans didn't know that Stalin knew, mind. The American (and Commonwealth) preparations for the invasion of Japan dwarfed even the Normandy landings. The scraps and rubbish the Soviets could scrape together in the Pacific wouldn't have been able to take Hokkaido on their own - and they'd have been busy in China and Korea in any case.

The fact that the whole country was about to starve to death would probably have lead to civil collapse long before any Allied, let alone Soviet, troops hit the beaches of the home islands.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-03-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
(27-03-2015 07:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  The answer is probably not one simple one, but Truman said he wanted to end the war without having to invade Japan and sustain up to 1,000,000 U.S. casualties.

A million US casualties - and tens of millions of Japanese casualties.

"BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD LULZ" is an idiotically disingenuous representation of the people who took the best of bad decisions.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
28-03-2015, 10:52 AM
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
(27-03-2015 01:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 07:26 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  But the real reason the atom bombs were dropped on Japan was that the U.S. government wanted to test the effect they'd have on real cities. This is why, after Hiroshima, the U.S. almost immediately bombed Nagasaki, without giving the Japanese government enough time to absorb the horror and react. The two bombs were made of different materials, and the government wanted to test them both.

False. The uranium bomb was so simple it didn't need a test. The plutonium bomb had been tested at Trinity before either was dropped.

They wanted to see what effect they would have on real cities, as opposed to constructions in the desert.


(27-03-2015 01:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 07:26 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  Your point about Dresden and the other civilian cities destroyed with regular bombs is valid. The real issue is that governments are made up of fucks who have no concern for anything but their own power, who will happily murder unarmed civilians in cold blood to accomplish political ends.


I note you only mention Dresden...

I said Dresden and the other civilian cities.



(27-03-2015 01:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 07:26 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  If I believed in God, which I do not, I would say that his non-interference when people have wars, is proof that he is one sick, psychotic motherfucker who gets his rocks off by watching children ripped apart and burned alive by bullets and bombs.

Have you read the old testament?

Good point. The OT, however, is just a book. If there is a God, the OT does not necessarily describe him. Most of the OT is bullshit, so what it says about God could be as well.

War, OTOH, is a concrete, present-day proof, that IF there is a god, he is, as I said above, one sick, psychotic motherfucker who gets his rocks off by watching children ripped apart and burned alive by bullets and bombs.

"El mar se mide por olas,
el cielo por alas,
nosotros por lágrimas."
-- Jaime Sabines
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2015, 11:17 AM
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
(28-03-2015 10:52 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  False. The uranium bomb was so simple it didn't need a test. The plutonium bomb had been tested at Trinity before either was dropped.

They wanted to see what effect they would have on real cities, as opposed to constructions in the desert.

But that's not what anyone actually said, either at the time or later. So, I'd be curious as to where you're getting the idea.

By summer 1945 the Allies knew pretty darn well what bombs did to cities. The reasons the atomic bombs were employed as they were are much more complicated than "KILL KILL KILL FOR THE LULZ". I find it extremely disingenuous to pretend that was all that was going on behind the scenes.

(28-03-2015 10:52 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I note you only mention Dresden...
I said Dresden and the other civilian cities.

Okay.

Put yourself in SAC's chair on August 1, 1945. What would you do?

(28-03-2015 10:52 AM)daniel1948 Wrote:  
(27-03-2015 01:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Have you read the old testament?

Good point. The OT, however, is just a book. If there is a God, the OT does not necessarily describe him. Most of the OT is bullshit, so what it says about God could be as well.

War, OTOH, is a concrete, present-day proof, that IF there is a god, he is, as I said above, one sick, psychotic motherfucker who gets his rocks off by watching children ripped apart and burned alive by bullets and bombs.

Well, yeah. If there is a God as depicted in the Old Testament then he's sure as hell one bloodthirsty son of a bitch, all right.

Although generally speaking, most gods were never portrayed as all-powerful, and as such, whatever we humans do is all on us. The problem of evil only arises due to a few peculiarities of Christian theology which were only invented as half-assed explanations in the first place without considering the consequences of such premises.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 10:26 AM
RE: Can Iran be trusted?
(27-03-2015 07:31 AM)BnW Wrote:  I now forget which was which but one of the two Japanese cities we nuked had no military significance and no manufacturing capability. It wasn't a legitimate target by any accepted definition.

As for why we did it, i don't believe in the test theory. We had already tested both bombs in the New Mexico dessert. I think we wanted to make sure Stalin knew e could not only build one bomb, we could build two. He had no idea we didn't have anymore.

Both cities were of importance as targets. Hiroshima had many Japanese army units located very close to and inside the city itself. It also contained large stockpiles of military supplies and served as a communication hub. Not to mention it was a large shipping port. Nagasaki was one of Japan's largest ports and contained many industrial targets that produced military material, weapons and ships. To say that either target was not of military importance is simply not true.

After the bombing of Hiroshima, Truman did communicate with the Japanese and they refused to surrender. They famously had four conditions for surrender, either one of which would have been the basis for refusal on the part of US. Any Japanese war criminals were to be dealt with by the Japanese government, not a global tribunal like Nuremberg. No occupation of the Japanese home islands, keeping their government structure as is and allowing that government to be responsible for its own disarmament. They could have certainly surrendered before the second bomb dropped, but they refused to give on any of those points. And I disagree with the test theory as well. We had more bombs in the pipeline that were going to be ready to drop in days. There were plans for the dropping of as many as 5-7 more nuclear bombs. This was not a test. And who's to say that in the end, the casualties wouldn't have been even greater if the Allies had to invade Japan and force surrender that way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: