The Guardian reports US nearly nuked North Carolina in 1961

[Darias]

Read the full story about how the geographical area I live in nearly got H'd here.

I'd like to know why bombers carrying that payload were flying around in the first place! Had an electrical short occurred, history would have played out very differently. I suspect since it has taken this long for the state to admit this, I doubt very seriously that the government at the time would have owned this mistake. It might have provided a pretense for war with the USSR; lord knows the panic it would have caused here in the south.

I guess the occasional H bomb accident is just the price you pay for the state's valiant effort at "keeping you safe."


What do you think would have happened?

Does the US nuclear program do more to protect lives or to endanger them?

[keithprosser3]

<duplicate>

[keithprosser3]

Are you advocating some kind of conspiracy theory where the US wanted to kill just for fun?

I offered no reason for such the short gap (6th and 9th August) - certainly not that the US kills 'for fun' - and I don't offer one now, but I do suggest it was too short to sure the second strike was necessary.

[scourge99]

Are you advocating some kind of conspiracy theory where the US wanted to kill just for fun?

I offered no reason for such the short gap (6th and 9th August) - certainly not that the US kills 'for fun' -

Ok. Just trying to get a feel for your position. Many people who debate this matter tend to be very anti-US and have some crazy ideas. Wasn't sure if you were one of those or not. You don't seem to be.

and I don't offer one now, but I do suggest it was too short to sure the second strike was necessary.

What exactly makes you say that? Waiting isn't without consequences.

War isn't a leisurely game of chess.

Is this just a gut feeling or do you have some reasoning to put forth?

[keithprosser3]

What reasoning can there be? Who can tell if the Japanese would have surrendered if they had been given more time, time in which terms could have been negotiated?

I cannot imagine the shock, dislocation and sheer disbelief the first attack must have caused. There were hawks in the Japanese cabinet, but they might have been over-ruled or placated in time... we will never know.

But the Nagasaki attack can be bracketed with the notoriously destructive conventional bombing attack - principally by Lancasters of the RAF - on Dresden when Germany was already effectively beaten.

It is also a moot question whether it matters to the dead if their deaths were 'militarily justifiable' or not. But that is off topic.

[scourge99]

What reasoning can there be? Who can tell if the Japanese would have surrendered if they had been given more time, time in which terms could have been negotiated?

I cannot imagine the shock, dislocation and sheer disbelief the first attack must have caused. There were hawks in the Japanese cabinet, but they might have been over-ruled or placated in time... we will never know.

Once again you are afflicted with hindsight bias. You are ASSUMING that the military knew that Japan would surrender. While military hoped for that, they didn't expect it or assume it. They were continuing with plans for a land invasion and many more air raids, both nuclear and conventional.

These facts completely fly in the face of your suggestion that they should bomb, then wait for surrender... Bomb, then wait for surrender.... As though they somehow magically knew japan would surrender.

But the Nagasaki attack can be bracketed with the notoriously destructive conventional bombing attack - principally by Lancasters of the RAF - on Dresden when Germany was already effectively beaten.

Once again, are you proposing that the military was not attacking a target of strategic importance?

You keep dodging these questions with agnostic like responses. But its clear you've got an opinion you seem to cowardly to stand behind with anything more than cheap potshots and moral outrage.

It is also a moot question whether it matters to the dead if their deaths were 'militarily justifiable' or not. But that is off topic.

Are you implying that deaths in the war were unjustifiable? Or are you just some utopian idealist?

[Darias]

1)

And let's never forget the only nation to ever nuke an enemy in war . . . .twice!!

And its a good thing we did. It forced Japan to surrender.

False. Japan was already prepared to surrender, provided that they could keep their emperor. The US ended up nuking Japanese cities, but let them keep their emperor anyway. If the goal was to force a Japanese surrender, the attack was absolutely, unequivocally unnecessary. They were losing the war, plain and simple.

[T]he Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

But the US leadership would not be satisfied with anything less than "unconditional" surrender. Failing to bring utter vengeance for Pearl Harbor would be like failing to invade any given Arab nation in the wake of 9/11. American bloodlust would not simply be satisfied with anything less than an obliterated enemy, not after the government pumped them full of war propaganda during the course of the war.

[center][/center]


If Americans didn't bat an eye when Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps, then what makes you think they cared about Japanese lives?

However, the evidence shows that the bombs were dropped to demonstrate US military capabilities to the Soviet Union, among other things:

To justify the cost of the Manhattan Project - The Manhattan Project was a secret program to which the U.S. had funneled an estimated $1,889,604,000 (in 1945 dollars) through December 31, 1945.

To impress the Soviets - With the end of the war nearing, the Soviets were an important strategic consideration, especially with their military control over most of Eastern Europe. As Yale Professor Gaddis Smith has noted, “It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.� However, this idea is thought to be more appropriately understood as an ancillary benefit of dropping the bomb and not so much its sole purpose.

A lack of incentives not to use the bomb - Weapons were created to be used. By 1945, the bombing of civilians was already an established practice. In fact, the earlier U.S. firebombing campaign of Japan, which began in 1944, killed an estimated 315,922 Japanese, a greater number than the estimated deaths attributed to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The firebombing of Tokyo alone resulted in roughly 100,000 Japanese killed.

Responding to Pearl Harbor - When a general raised objections to the use of the bombs, Truman responded by noting the atrocities of Pearl Harbor and said that “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.�

2)

If they didn't then we were planning on a mainland invasion that was expected to costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives.

False. For the sake of argument, even if you deny the reality that Japan would have surrendered in private talks (so long as they didn't have to give up their emperor), there were several alternatives the US could have taken aside from an invasion.

Intensifying conventional bombing and the naval blockade - General MacArthur felt that air power alone could force a Japanese surrender within six months with little risk to American lives. However, it was also argued that this may be a best case scenario where in actuality it could take substantially longer.

Allowing the Japanese to retain the Emperor - This plan was predicated on mitigating the call for unconditional surrender by Japan. Both Secretary of War Stimson and Acting Secretary of State Grew felt that this was an essential policy because of the dedication and fanaticism of the Japanese people towards the Emperor Hirohito, whom the Japanese believed to be a deity.

Waiting for the Soviet Union to enter the war - This had been a primary objective of President Roosevelt in his negotiations with the Soviet Union at the Yalta Conference. Nevertheless, the Committee believed that a Soviet invasion of Manchuria would be helpful but not decisive by itself.

Michael Bess in chapter 10 of his book, Choices Under Fire: Moral Dimensions of World War II, notes that the US could have demonstrated an atomic strike on an unpopulated location for Japanese leadership to behold. This could have been used in combination with other alternatives to force an unconditional surrender. Accepting a modified surrender deal would have brought about the quickest end, without turning hundreds of thousands of civilians into glass or napalm charrs.



3)

Who really can't be trusted with WMDs?

Any type of organization or group which is not the head of a state. This requirment create culpability for their use.

So you'd trust anyone with a large stockpile of nuclear armaments, so long as they have "president" in their title? Who in their right mind would consent to give that sort of power to someone, if the people had within their power to give permission in the first place?

What makes you think states are accountable for the use or accidental discharge of nuclear weapons? The US has not faced charges or fines for wiping out civilian populations in Japan and elsewhere. What makes you think states are responsible enough to possess these weapons? People worry about the madman who might get his hands on an unaccounted-for Russian device, but they are not the least bit concerned when they vote to put psychopaths in charge of the button that can launch thousands of nuclear weapons, or who can authorize hundreds of drone strikes, etc.

Obama Told Aides About Drone Strikes: I’m ‘Really Good At Killing People’

4)

Who's people are the most ignorant about the outside world?

The people aren't who we need to be concerned about. They don't make the decisions. Its the leaders.

You are correct in that the public has no control or sway over foreign policy apart from unrest or public outcry -- or anything else that threatens the re-electability of politicians. But the public is rationally ignorant about politics because they have busy lives. Unfortunately, because they are indoctrinated during their youth to believe that voting is a "civic duty," they still show up at the polls to vote for the most interesting name or personality. Ultimately the choice they are given every four years amounts to little or no positive change, as both parties maintain similar policies despite their respective talking points. The Obama administration only managed to expand executive powers that Bush once wielded. The same people who demonized Bush now extol Obama for expanding his powers to nullify habeas corpus and to have the legal authority to assassinate anyone he thinks is guilty without trial. 800 years of limited powers for the highest office in the land -- over. Truly the power of parchment, be it the Magna Carta or the US Constitution, cannot still be believed to exist.

[T]he Constitution . . . has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it.

5)

Who are educated and yet still belive in creation?

I don't see what that has to do with nuclear weapons.

In my opinion, someone who believes in any rendition of end time's prophecy is not fit for office, then again, I don't want any human being to be endowed with that sort of power. Unfortunately, every 4 years Americans get to decide which village idiot they want to become supreme leader of the world -- usually based off how nice the guy seems or whether or not his race, gender, or orientation is exotic when compared to those rulers of times past.



6)

It would be funny if it wasn't so scary to share this planet with such people.

What other world world 2 super power would would you have preferred to be in charge? Russia? Japan? Fascist Italy? The Nazis?

What's wrong with not none of the above? There doesn't need to be a world superpower in charge of creating, proliferating, and using nuclear weapons, just as there doesn't have to be a divine right for kings to rule over us.



7)

It seems to me that the US was the best pick of the litter.

You would be saying that as a subject of any nation that happened to be the victor -- a winner you did not choose. The winning nation's atrocities are downplayed, covered up, not taught in public schools, or justified, while the losing nation's atrocities become the ultimate acts of barbaric evil. In my opinion, the reason the hammer and sickle doesn't draw the same condemnation as a swastika is probably because the Soviets were on the side of the allies.

[center][/center]

It doesn't matter that the number of civilians killed because of state communist policies far outweighed the number who perished in the Holocaust, even if you only count the Jewish victims. State communism literally killed more people than all who died during WWII. But people still walk around with Che Guevara T shirts and communist lapels like it's perfectly normal or cool, the same way that Indians think owning a copy of Mein Kampf is the hip thing to do.

That said, I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to do what they want to do, as I am not for regulations outlawing harmless ignorance or racism. Still, if people were actually educated on this, you would expect the same moral outrage for all crimes, not just those of "the enemy."

But people love their flags too much to really be equal opportunity critics...

[center][/center]



-

[keithprosser3]

Or are you just some utopian idealist?

I suppose I must be.

You seem to be under the impression I have a definite view on these matters - well, I don't. I see these issues as extremely difficult to take a firm view on - that's why I started a thread about it.

I greatly sympathise with the people who have to make such decisions, and I try not to apply hindsight to my judgement of them. I don't hold the decision to go again 'only 3' days after Hiroshima against the US or even the air-force commanders who made it. I'm sure it was not an easy decision to take.

But I think it is important to consider whether - with the benefit of a lesson learned - the same decision should be made again in similar circumstances. Perhaps it should, in which case we need to make sure those circumstances are avoided.

A contributory factor was that the allies - at Rooselvelt's insistance - demanded unconditional surrender. That may have made things worse by precluding any 'face-saving' compromise.

In the end it doesn't matter whether Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Dresden were justified or not. They happened, and thousands died either way. The point is to learn something from them.

[/quote]

[scourge99]

1)

And let's never forget the only nation to ever nuke an enemy in war . . . .twice!!

And its a good thing we did. It forced Japan to surrender.

False.

So in your opinion, nuclear weapons did not play a major role in the surrender of japan?
When the emperor made explicit reference to them in his surrender speech as one of the main reasons, he was lying or not being honest?

Here is part of that short speech:

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.

Japan was already prepared to surrender, provided that they could keep their emperor. The US ended up nuking Japanese cities, but let them keep their emperor anyway. If the goal was to force a Japanese surrender, the attack was absolutely, unequivocally unnecessary. They were losing the war, plain and simple.

Some were. Some were not. The Japanese leadership was very divided. A coup was even attempted AFTER the nukes were dropped to prevent surrender.

The Japanese knew they could not win. But it was a question of how far they were willing to fight. A stalemate was still possible on the mainland.

Also, firebombing cities did far more damage and killed more than nukes. Nukes were just cheaper and more efficient means of strategic bombing.

[T]he Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

But the US leadership would not be satisfied with anything less than "unconditional" surrender. Failing to bring utter vengeance for Pearl Harbor would be like failing to invade any given Arab nation in the wake of 9/11. American bloodlust would not simply be satisfied with anything less than an obliterated enemy, not after the government pumped them full of war propaganda during the course of the war.

This is just silly. While I'm sure there was racism involved to some extent, the notion that its the main factor is conspiracy theory absurd.

If Americans didn't bat an eye when Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps, then what makes you think they cared about Japanese lives?

Once again, this notion that every American was a blood lusting hater of the Japanese race is silly and absurd. Yes, they were the "enemy". Yes propaganda played a role in troop moral. But you are being incredibly myopic .

1940's America surely was racist... to an extent. But nothing like you propose. For example, Japanese Americans were not put in concentration camps. The internment camps, while definitely reprehensible, immoral, and unconstitutional, were NOTHING in comparison to actual Nazi concentration camps. To eve compare them in such a manner is patently dishonest and shows just how misinformed or dishonest you are when it comes to this subject.

However, the evidence shows that the bombs were dropped to demonstrate US military capabilities to the Soviet Union, among other things:

yes that is ONE reason as the source you cite points out. But not the MAIN reason.

To justify the cost of the Manhattan Project - The Manhattan Project was a secret program to which the U.S. had funneled an estimated $1,889,604,000 (in 1945 dollars) through December 31, 1945.

To impress the Soviets - With the end of the war nearing, the Soviets were an important strategic consideration, especially with their military control over most of Eastern Europe. As Yale Professor Gaddis Smith has noted, “It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.� However, this idea is thought to be more appropriately understood as an ancillary benefit of dropping the bomb and not so much its sole purpose.

A lack of incentives not to use the bomb - Weapons were created to be used. By 1945, the bombing of civilians was already an established practice. In fact, the earlier U.S. firebombing campaign of Japan, which began in 1944, killed an estimated 315,922 Japanese, a greater number than the estimated deaths attributed to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The firebombing of Tokyo alone resulted in roughly 100,000 Japanese killed.

Responding to Pearl Harbor - When a general raised objections to the use of the bombs, Truman responded by noting the atrocities of Pearl Harbor and said that “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.�

2)

Lastl,y we see another of your dishonest debate tactics showing how deranged you are when it comes to this subject. You have been caught QUOTE MINING.


Here is that quote in context. Let me highlight the IMPORTANT section for you:

Deciding to Drop the Bomb

In the lead up to the Trinity test, the top priority for President Truman was to end the war as quickly as possible with the fewest U.S. casualties. For many, this had become the overarching purpose for using the atomic bomb once it was completed. Walker notes five reasons why Truman chose to use the bomb.

Ending the war at the earliest possible moment - The primary objective for the U.S. was to win the war at the lowest possible cost. Specifically, Truman was looking for the most effective way to end the war quickly, not for a way to not use the bomb.

To justify the cost of the Manhattan Project - The Manhattan Project was a secret program to which the U.S. had funneled an estimated $1,889,604,000 (in 1945 dollars) through December 31, 1945.

To impress the Soviets - With the end of the war nearing, the Soviets were an important strategic consideration, especially with their military control over most of Eastern Europe. As Yale Professor Gaddis Smith has noted, “It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.� However, this idea is thought to be more appropriately understood as an ancillary benefit of dropping the bomb and not so much its sole purpose.

A lack of incentives not to use the bomb - Weapons were created to be used. By 1945, the bombing of civilians was already an established practice. In fact, the earlier U.S. firebombing campaign of Japan, which began in 1944, killed an estimated 315,922 Japanese, a greater number than the estimated deaths attributed to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The firebombing of Tokyo alone resulted in roughly 100,000 Japanese killed.

Responding to Pearl Harbor - When a general raised objections to the use of the bombs, Truman responded by noting the atrocities of Pearl Harbor and said that “When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast.�

Oh, and perhaps you should have read the source you quoted in its entirety. YOu claim its the "Center for Strategic and International Studies". Opps, wrong again its actually a writer named Nathan Donohue and there is a very important dsiclaimer at the end:

Nathan Donohue is a research intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues. The views expressed above are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Strategic and International Studies or the Project on Nuclear Issues.


Given that I've shown you unequivocally as a quote mining, misrepresenting, hack when it comes to this subject, I'm not going to bother with the rest of the vomit in your post.

[scourge99]

Or are you just some utopian idealist?

I suppose I must be.



You seem to be under the impression I have a definite view on these matters - well, I don't.

Well you sure seem to have opinions of some sort when you say things like
1) the second only 3 days later, hardly a long time for the Japanese to assimilate what had happened at Hiroshima.
2) Maybe even one wasn't needed.
3) A non-fatal demonstration of the power of the A-bomb may not have cowed the Japanese leadership, but it wasn't even tried.
4)What reasoning can there be [for only bombing with only 3 days in between]?
5) Who can tell if the Japanese would have surrendered if they had been given more time, time in which terms could have been negotiated?
6) There were hawks in the Japanese cabinet, but they might have been over-ruled or placated in time

I see these issues as extremely difficult to take a firm view on - that's why I started a thread about it.

Well there are lots of complexities. We must sort through them based on the writings and circumstances of those at the time. Not guesses and hunches about the personal and private motivations of the actors. I try to avoid pretending i can read the mind of my wife, let alone historical figures. Its a fool's errand.

I greatly sympathise with the people who have to make such decisions, and I try not to apply hindsight to my judgement of them. I don't hold the decision to go again 'only 3' days after Hiroshima against the US or even the air-force commanders who made it. I'm sure it was not an easy decision to take.

Apparently there were continued firebombing raids in between as well. Firebombing caused far more damage and death than the nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan

But I think it is important to consider whether - with the benefit of a lesson learned - the same decision should be made again in similar circumstances. Perhaps it should, in which case we need to make sure those circumstances are avoided.

Every day waited more Americans and Japanese die as the war drags on. Every day the Russians move closer. Every day more American money is spent n the war. Every day waited there is a chance that the Japanese could turn it around or force a stalemate.

If you have a weapon at your disposal which can greatly damage your enemy and possibly cause him to surrender earlier, i think its a no brainer that you use that weapon.

A contributory factor was that the allies - at Rooselvelt's insistance - demanded unconditional surrender. That may have made things worse by precluding any 'face-saving' compromise.

Unconditional surrender in a total war scenario is not unreasonable. Especially given that we had given certain assurances. Losers have to decide whether those terms are acceptable or to keep fighting until they are. Obviously, Japan didn't find the terms of the Potsdam Declaration acceptable before the nukes. And even after the first nuke they were divided. After the second nuke, enough were convinced to agree to the terms set by the Potsdam Declaration.

[Darias]

1)

And its a good thing we did. It forced Japan to surrender.

False.

So in your opinion, nuclear weapons did not play a major role in the surrender of japan?
When the emperor made explicit reference to them in his surrender speech as one of the main reasons, he was lying or not being honest?

Here is part of that short speech:

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers.

When you say that it was "a good thing" to nuke Japan and explicitly state that it forced them to surrender, as to imply there was no other way for the US to force Japan to surrender, unconditionally or otherwise -- this is what I mean when by false.

I am not denying that the nuclear attacks put pressures on the Japanese government to accept every US condition for surrender.

I am stating that if the US leadership wanted the Japanese to surrender, there were several alternatives that did not involve further mass democide. Some still involved a nuclear weapon as a demonstration, but to try to suggest that there was no other way that occurred to US leaders at the time is historically inaccurate, not to mention a fallacious ex post facto justification for the strikes -- which is what you're trying to do.



2)

Japan was already prepared to surrender, provided that they could keep their emperor. The US ended up nuking Japanese cities, but let them keep their emperor anyway. If the goal was to force a Japanese surrender, the attack was absolutely, unequivocally unnecessary. They were losing the war, plain and simple.

Some were. Some were not. The Japanese leadership was very divided. A coup was even attempted AFTER the nukes were dropped to prevent surrender.

This is really misleading. Yes, there were hardliners in the Japanese Council, even after the first strike, but the emperor had final say in the surrender. However, they hardly had time to react before the next bomb was dropped.

We now have a detailed picture, from the research of both Japanese and American historians, of what was going on in the highest levels of the Tokyo government between August 6 and August 10. The emperor, in the aftermath of Hiroshima and the Soviet attack in China, had rapidly come around to the view that the war was hopeless, and that the army and navy leaders were not behaving rationally in their insistence on keeping up the fight. Thus, it is probable--although not certain--that Hirohito's mind was already made up for surrender by the morning of August 9, and that the bad news from Nagasaki only reinforced, but did not substantially alter, his position.53

-----------
53. Hasegawa, Racing the Enemy, 185-86, 198.

Bess goes on to argue that the second bomb had a convincing effect on hardliners and ultimately blames the Japanese government for what the US did to its population -- but that point is irrelevant because there was no need for a consensus, as the emperor had the power to accept US terms even if most of the counsel was against the idea (which they weren't).

After the second bomb dropped, the attempted Kyūj� Incident by Japanese officers was incredibly unsuccessful; and they couldn't persuade the army to go through with it. The vast majority of government leaders and soldiers who were ready to submit to all of American's terms made the coup impossible. The divisions existed yes, but it wasn't the 50/50 scenario you have in mind, either before, in between or after the bombings.



3)

The Japanese knew they could not win. But it was a question of how far they were willing to fight. A stalemate was still possible on the mainland.

When the Russians entered the war, the emperor saw the writing on the wall.



4)

Also, firebombing cities did far more damage and killed more than nukes. Nukes were just cheaper and more efficient means of strategic bombing.

I personally wouldn't consider something like the The Manhattan Project to be a cheap alternative.

But yes firebombing killed far more. But firebombing doesn't involve irradiating a large area. It could also be argued that the firebombings had a counter productive effect. If terrorists started bombing major cities in the US, you could easily imagine the resolve and determination for retaliation.

There's a reason why "strategic bombing" has become obsolete, and it's not due to technology, but due to the fact that it doesn't destroy the will to fight or get revenge. This is true whether you're carpet bombing a city or using double-tap drone strikes. Drone strikes make more terrorists and terrorist sympathizers than they kill, and both drone strikes and bombing civilian populations always kill more civilians than "bad guys."

[quote="Greg Tomlin, "The Efficacy of Strategic Bombing: World War II to the Kosovo Campaign""]The Tet Offensive of 1968 ended all illusions that the bombings significantly weakened the enemy’s ability or will to fight. When 70,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops invaded the majority of the South’s provincial capitals in the Offensive, American air commanders were stunned. Clodfelter believes that if US decision-makers had accepted that they could not fight a conventional war against a guerrilla force, the administration would have pursued another course of action.[/quote]

In any case you can't point to one slaughter of civilians to justify another. No one in their right mind would say that because the Holocaust killed far fewer people than state-communism, that makes it okay. Slaughtering large populations is not necessary to win a war that's already won.

I personally don't see how "you can't keep your emperor" was worth all those lives, especially when they let them have him anyway.



5)

[T]he Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

But the US leadership would not be satisfied with anything less than "unconditional" surrender. Failing to bring utter vengeance for Pearl Harbor would be like failing to invade any given Arab nation in the wake of 9/11. American bloodlust would not simply be satisfied with anything less than an obliterated enemy, not after the government pumped them full of war propaganda during the course of the war.

This is just silly. While I'm sure there was racism involved to some extent, the notion that its the main factor is conspiracy theory absurd.

I never said it was "the main factor" -- but it was a driving factor. All you have to do is take a look at US propaganda posters about the Japanese and read Truman's comments about them. The US government didn't imprison masses of German and Italian Americans now did they? And without propaganda calling for the death of every last Jap -- without a steady feed of dehumanizing rhetoric -- it's really hard to wage a war indefinitely. Governments need support for war in order to wage them; Vietnam, if anything, proves that much. Propaganda is always an important factor in war; and too pass it off, or to pass racism off that goes with it, as marginally relevant to the war is what's silly.



6)

If Americans didn't bat an eye when Japanese Americans were put into concentration camps, then what makes you think they cared about Japanese lives?

Once again, this notion that every American was a blood lusting hater of the Japanese race is silly and absurd. Yes, they were the "enemy". Yes propaganda played a role in troop moral. But you are being incredibly myopic .

1940's America surely was racist... to an extent. But nothing like you propose. For example, Japanese Americans were not put in concentration camps. The internment camps, while definitely reprehensible, immoral, and unconstitutional, were NOTHING in comparison to actual Nazi concentration camps. To eve compare them in such a manner is patently dishonest and shows just how misinformed or dishonest you are when it comes to this subject.

[quote=""Concentration Camp," Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 11th ed., p. 257"]n (1901): a camp where persons (as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined.[/quote]
[quote=""Concentration Camp," Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary"]Internment centre established by a government to confine political prisoners or members of national or minority groups for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment. The prisoners are usually selected by executive decree or military order. Camps are usually built to house many people, typically in highly crowded conditions. Countries that have used such camps include Britain during the South African War, the Soviet Union (see Gulag), the U.S. (see Manzanar Relocation Center), and Japan, which interned Dutch civilians in the Dutch East Indies during World War II. A variation, called a “reeducation camp,� was used in Vietnam after 1975 and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Most notorious were the death camps of Nazi Germany, including Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, and Treblinka.[/quote]

President Roosevelt himself called the 10 facilities "concentration camps."

Some Japanese Americans died in the camps due to inadequate medical care and the emotional stresses they encountered. Several were killed by military guards posted for allegedly resisting orders.

At the time, Executive Order 9066 was justified as a "military necessity" to protect against domestic espionage and sabotage. However, it was later documented that "our government had in its possession proof that not one Japanese American, citizen or not, had engaged in espionage, not one had committed any act of sabotage." (Michi Weglyn, 1976).

Rather, the causes for this unprecedented action in American history, according to the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, "were motivated largely by racial prejudice, [and] wartime hysteria. . . .

The source goes on to say that more than half of these victims were kids.

I've taken classes on the second world war in college and at university. I also took a class on Nazi history. The Nazis had several types of camps, including labor camps and death camps. So they definitely had camps that concentrated people in a confined area against their will, just like the United States.

That said, I never claimed that there was a Japanese version of the Holocaust; that is your straw man -- talk about dishonesty.

Furthermore, your insistence on the term "internment" as opposed to "concentration" is ridiculous. What the hell are you defending by refusing to agree to the term "concentration"? It wasn't some sort of day care or federal protection program. They were prisons, which were cramped without plumbing. Anyone who tried to leave was shot.

Got a fancy euphemism to make that somehow appear morally superior to when the Nazis mowed down POW escapees or anyone else?

No no no, you see in America, we had relocation centers to protect Japanese Americans; yes, many had inadequate conditions for living and insufficient rations were given out. Lawbreakers were terminated to maintain security and safety... but in Germany, there were concentration camps where they starved their own people, who were forced to sit in their own filth and go hungry. Thugs murdered and executed anyone in cold blood if they dared to escape.

This endless well of justification and excuses you have makes me want to vomit. Confucius said, "The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name." By using the accurate term "concentration camp" no one is claiming that the US had a genocidal program on par with the Nazis. I prefer the term "concentration," not only because it is an accurate use of the word, but also because I refuse to use doublespeak. Soft language does nothing but make crimes more palatable to the delicate sensibilities of patriots. No, the forced kidnapping of Japanese citizens wasn't a holocaust, but they were held in concentration camps, nonetheless.

I would go so far as to say using the term "concentration camp" to describe the death camps and labor camps the Nazis operated doesn't do it justice. They were a type of concentration camp, according to the definition, but they went far beyond that.

It is perhaps best to use extermination camps and labor camps to describe what the Nazi government did and to use concentration camps to describe what the American government did, rather than tone it down for everyone. Unfortunately, people diminish crimes against others in order to justify the unjustifiable or to make history more palatable, in the attempts to morally pardon a nation they love most.

And yeah, I'm not tolerant of soft language at all. It serves no purpose other than to justify and excuse and lessen the indefensible.



7)

However, the evidence shows that the bombs were dropped to demonstrate US military capabilities to the Soviet Union, among other things:

yes that is ONE reason as the source you cite points out. But not the MAIN reason.

In my defense, I did say "among other things,"did I not? In any case, this was a major reason.

If finding a peaceful, swift end to the conflict was more important, then US policymakers would have advocated a different route. However showing the Soviet's who's boss and unconditional surrender were some of the main factors at play here.



8)

Lastl,y we see another of your dishonest debate tactics showing how deranged you are when it comes to this subject. You have been caught QUOTE MINING.

Here is that quote in context. Let me highlight the IMPORTANT section for you:

In the lead up to the Trinity test, the top priority for President Truman was to end the war as quickly as possible with the fewest U.S. casualties. For many, this had become the overarching purpose for using the atomic bomb once it was completed. Walker notes five reasons why Truman chose to use the bomb.

Ending the war at the earliest possible moment - The primary objective for the U.S. was to win the war at the lowest possible cost. Specifically, Truman was looking for the most effective way to end the war quickly, not for a way to not use the bomb.

I read this part, and I didn't quote it because I'm trying to make an argument. I thought it was agreed that two atomic strikes put incredible pressure on the Japanese government to accept unconditional surrender. I thought it was already agreed that the US wanted to use those nuclear weapons to force such a surrender. But this is besides the point I'm trying to make, and bringing it up contributes nothing to your argument. My decision not to include this section does not discredit or contest my points in the least.



9)

Oh, and perhaps you should have read the source you quoted in its entirety. YOu claim its the "Center for Strategic and International Studies". Opps, wrong again its actually a writer named Nathan Donohue and there is a very important dsiclaimer at the end:

Nathan Donohue is a research intern for the Project on Nuclear Issues. The views expressed above are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Strategic and International Studies or the Project on Nuclear Issues.

Failure to cite a name I did not notice is hardly "dishonesty."

Whether an author is an intern or a head scholar, their views are their own. This is true of any think tank or news source. The CSIS isn't a hive mind, but I can promise you one thing -- his article would not be on their site if it was inaccurate or unacceptable. Think tanks want halfway competent people to write for them.

[quote="CSIS "Nuclear Scholars Initiative: Project on Nuclear Issues, Class of 2013""]Nathan Donohue received his M.A. in International Affairs from the George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs. At the Elliott School, Mr. Donohue’s primary research focused on reducing the dangers of unsecure nuclear and radiological materials. Complementing his studies, Mr. Donohue participated in two U.S. Department of Energy’s Next Generation Safeguards Initiative courses as well as a U.S. Department of State Arms Control and Verification workshop on achieving future nuclear reductions. Mr. Donohue’s professional career has shown a dedication to the goals of nonproliferation. As an intern in the Office of Export Control Cooperation at the U.S. Department of State, Mr. Donohue contributes daily to facilitating outreach and international cooperation designed to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In addition, Mr. Donohue completed internships at CSIS, the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, and the American Security Project (ASP), and worked as an independent consultant to ASP and the Elliott School advising on the content
and presentation of various U.S. national security projects.[/quote]

If your problem is with my source, I would be happy to provide you any number of sources or people who can attest to the historical realities. I just figured the CSIS was a good source because they claim to be bipartisan. This information isn't inherently partisan in any way shape or form.

If someone reads an op-ed in The New York Times, are they dishonest for saying that they read something in The New York Times?

I didn't get this information from some neckbeard on a blog. I got it from an article by an informed individual who worked at CSIS, which was featured on their website. I don't see how this is a problem. It's not plagiarism; it's not dishonest. I followed this site's rules by supporting my argument. Most of the time people don't even bother to cite sources., but I not only quote sources and provide the BB code that links the source to the quote, I also name the source I'm quoting.

If I was trying to be dishonest, I wouldn't have given you a link in the first place. I intentionally provide links so that people can go and see for themselves what it says; I want people to read my sources, that is why I bother to post links! I don't copy paste the entire article because I'm trying to formulate my own argument without letting other people speak for me.

In any case I fail to see what is so critical about the name of this individual. If you're so hung up on that as to ignore my entire argument, then you can't see the forest for the trees.



10)

Given that I've shown you unequivocally as a quote mining, misrepresenting, hack when it comes to this subject, I'm not going to bother with the rest of the vomit in your post.

You have the audacity to call me a "dishonest hack," yet you have consistently used sophistry throughout this thread.

All of your arguments and "rebuttals" on this thread have been nothing more than a continual string of false dilemmas and straw man arguments. Allow me to demonstrate:

A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, black-and/or-white thinking, the either-or fallacy, the fallacy of false choice, the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses, the fallacy of the false alternative or the fallacy of the excluded middle) is a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

*

And its a good thing we did. It forced Japan to surrender.

If they didn't then we were planning on a mainland invasion that was expected to costs hundreds of thousands of American lives and millions of Japanese lives.

As I demonstrated earlier, this either we kill them off or we get our boys killed is a bullshit argument. There were several alternatives to the atomic strikes and land invasion.


*

Many people who debate this matter tend to be very anti-US and have some crazy ideas. Wasn't sure if you were one of those or not.

So because someone questions the need for two nuclear strikes, they're anti-American with crazy ideas? I mean, I'm fine if you call me that because I'm an anarchist and not an apologist for any nation, but using this sort of tactic with others doesn't do a damn thing to prove your argument. It just bullies others to agree with you, to prove that they really do love the country with all their heart.


*

Are you implying that deaths in the war were unjustifiable? Or are you just some utopian idealist?

Here you are creating a false choice: If you don't pledge your full support and defend the actions of the past without question, then you're some sort of peacenik expecting the impossible from men who didn't know any better.


*

Are you advocating some kind of conspiracy theory where the US wanted to kill just for fun? That their goal wasn't to win the war?

How asinine. Who is arguing this? How can someone's questioning of the "need" to use the atomic bombs deserve this sort of mischaracterization? Is it possible to be more dishonest?


*

Once again, are you proposing that the military was not attacking a target of strategic importance?

No one is saying the strikes didn't make America the winner. Anyone can scrape around for some sort of justification by using hindsight to justify some semblance of strategic benefit. But at the end of the day, we're talking about mass democide and the use of the ultimate weapon before all other effective options are exhausted to achieve a reasonable end to hostilities. This is why not just one, but two strikes, were absolutely indefensible.



-