Hiroshima/Nagasaki Nukes -><- WTC attacks

[WarFalcon]

Originally posted by Nodrog

3) They hit the Pentagon as well. If the attempt was purely to kill civilians, wouldnt they have hit a second civilian target?

There really isn't much distinction between American military and American civilian targets, nor between American government and American people. It is all the same thing.

[LHC]

Originally posted by Iniluki


Starving them wouldnt be effective? I'd have serious issues with my governments policies if they where causing me to starve to death.

That worked superbly in Lenigrad. One town, with no help from farming. I'm sure Japan could have used farms.

[Chrism]

Originally posted by Rick
Most of you are idiots.

Coming from you, of all people, that's a highly ironic statement.

[Tactitus]

Japan has 22K miles (35K kilometers) of coastline--that's almost equal to the Earth's circumference! A blockade of that magnitude would have been horribly expensive, and never 100% effective. Also, oil can be synthesized out of coal (or pretty much any organic material) if you're desperate enough. How much oil would Japan need for, say, a fleet of small submarines? Not much. A blockading fleet would end up being targets for torpedoes.

A blockade probably would have taken as much manpower and resources as the war itself was taking, plus it still wouldn't have ended the war (Japan was almost self-sufficient in food). It would only have reduced the intensity of the conflict to a somewhat lower level--indefinitely.

Sometimes in a war the most humanitarion thing to do is end it as quickly as possible.

[Vermillion]

Oh my god. This comes up every few months, and nobody seem to remember the last time it came up. The guesswork, like always is just flying fast and furious here...

Allow me.

There is really only one historical debate on this issue going on at the moment. That is the one Nodrog has been referring to, and that is the specific use of the second atomic weapon over Nagasaki. There is no debate about the use of the first bomb, at least not by anyone who knows the history of the subject.

In late July 1945 Japan was not about to surrender. The ruling cabinet in the government was formed of three groups, civilians, naval and Army Officers. The civilians were divided, some wanted peace, some wanted war. There was no consensus. The Navy was disgraced, and it tended to follow the decisions of the Army. It still had a strong voice, but nowhere near as much as in 1941. Due to its performance in the latter years of the war, it no longer held a voice of power. The Army was unified in its desire for war. It held the strongest voice and had no intention of surrendering. On paper, more than 2/3 of the Japanese army was unharmed and intact in China and Manchuria. In fact the war in China was still going fairly well. While most knew that it would be impossible to win the war, Japan saw opportunities for an honourable settlement, which would allow them to keep their Chinese possessions. The plan was for a single massive attack against any US or Allied forces landing on the homeland. Japan had over 6000 aircraft stockpiled (old and obsolete aircraft mind you) for which ¾ would be given suicide assignments on US coastal fleets. The actual effect of the counter push would have had on landing US forces is of course unknown. The Japanese correctly guessed the landing spot of the US, but most of the defences would have been obliterated by shore and naval bombardment. Previous estimates show that Kamikaze pilots had about a 5-10% hit rate. Even if you lower that considering the poor quality of the remaining Japanese pilots, that is still a potential for a lot of damage.

But there was no chance of surrender. The Japanese ambassador to Holland decided on his own initiative to try and broker a peace with the US on behalf of his government. The Japanese government, upon hearing this, cut off his status, and sentenced him to death as a traitor in absentia. A further series of pro-peace officials were arrested and imprisoned or executed in June of 1945. The Japanese refused to mention the Potsdam declaration in the Media, or discuss it in cabinet past a few dismissive comments.

The only official line at that time was that the Japanese would be willing to negotiate a cease-fire if the terms were right, but of course, the 'unconditional surrender' principle held as true in the Pacific as it did in Europe.

When Roosevelt died, Truman was left with the decision to drop the bomb. It is at this time that he was presented by Marshall of the possibility of up to 1 million casualties for the invasion of Japan. It is further important to not that he was speaking of 'casualties' not 'dead'. In the pacific, the US was working a 3:1 casualties: dead ratio. Furthermore, since then even that estimate forms the highest of the estimates of casualties.

There are other reasons apart from just the potential casualties. The home front was having serious difficulty with the war, and it was unknown how much longer the American people would support continued war. With Hitler dead and Europe at peace, the rotation scheme for troops meant that ¾ of the experienced non-commissioned officers would be rotated home before the invasion could take place. Much of the invasion force would be green troops.

All of this led to the obvious decision to drop the first atomic bomb. It was the absolutely logical and correct choice to make. Hiroshima was chosen because of the naval academy there, and the fact that it was relatively undamaged from bombing so far in the war. One option that was discussed was dropping the bomb several miles out to sea off Tokyo harbour, but the problem was that at a distance, with no physical effect to measure, the effect would be limited only to those who first-hand saw the blast. With no way to measure or record damage, the 'warning shot' could be downplayed or dismissed easily but the Japanese staff. The bomb was not dropped on Tokyo for several reasons, but the main one was that Tokyo was so huge, and the centre of the city was already so gutted (the March 3-5th firebombing destroyed 16 square km in the centre of the city) that the effects of the atomic bomb would be muted.

So they dropped the Bomb. The effect upon Japan was limited. There was no mention of it in the press, and no unusual activity in the cabinet on the 6th or 7th. When army representatives visited the site 24 hours later, they described it as being 'not as bad as the centre of Tokyo'. They also did not believe it was an atomic bomb. A common theory was that the US had dropped hundreds of thousands of strips of magnesium, and then ignited them all at once. Most importantly, everyone agreed that the US would not be able to duplicate this feat. There was NO talk of a surrender.

2 Days later, the forgotten even occurred, which nobody ever seems to mention for some reason. The USSR invaded Manchuria on 9 August 1945. Within 24 hours they had utterly routed much of the Japanese forces. The Red Army, huge, equipped and experienced against the Nazis, faces the Kwangtung army fielding no artillery above 75 mm, few tanks, and those tanks they had with guns no bigger than 50 mm and no modern anti tank weapons. This was a double blow, because the USSR had been the traditional route of diplomatic messages between japan and the Allies, and many regarded the USSR as a benevolent neutral.

This destruction broke the back of the Army in the Ruling cabinet, they were disgraced much like the navy, but they still had the power to veto any legislation, and both army and Navy had the power to dissolve and reform the cabinet at will, a power they had used several times during the war. There was still little talk of peace, in fact the order for the mobilisation of defences against invasion (hardly the act of a surrendering nation) was done the same day as Nagasaki. More time would have made no difference. The public were completely in the dark, and the government held firm to their option of a negotiated surrender.

Nagasaki is more nebulous. A second bomb was required, but this one could have been dropped in a place with less loss of life. Maybe Tokyo harbour. At this point is was just proof that the US could do it again. In response to that I say, maybe, but this is 1945 we are talking about not 2002, and to quote Patton "you don't win wars by not killing people". Its not just the 60 years difference, its also the experience of just having survived 6 years of brutal warfare, and 4 years more only 20 years earlier.

So they dropped the Bomb. Again. Also on the 10th, the US delivered another massive bombing raid on Tokyo. The cabinet met and after some debate is was decided that Japan would not surrender unconditionally, and that the planned defence of the mainland would continue. Army Minister General Anami (a leading cabinet member) made a loud proclamation on the radio stating that the Japanese would never surrender. At this point, the Emperor, technically head of the cabinet, but traditionally silent, spoke up and pled for peace. The Cabinet eventually agreed after prolongued and heated wrangling on the terms (they still insisted on the maintenance of the Status of the Emperor) which at least once led to a fistfight in the cabinet chambers, and Japan finally surrendered.

That night, the Army staged a Coup against the Emperor in order to take him into 'protective custody' and reverse his decision to surrender. The coup was a very close thing, but was thwarted when several key generals stayed loyal. The offending officers either killed themselves, or in several cases, got into aircraft for last ditch kamikaze missions against the US. As the announcement of surrender was read by the Emperor on 12 noon on the 15th, there were mutinies in barracks across the country, though in most cases it was short or ended by suicide.

Not only was Japan NOT about to surrender, but it is unlikely that they ever would have EVEN AFTER the two bombs, had not the Russians invaded Manchuria. While there is an argument to be made that the second bomb did not need to target Nagasaki, there is no argument against dropping the bombs. Even after these three critical events, the Japanese came very close to continuing the war.

Now the casualty estimates of marshall are overstated, and the insane 25 million Japanese dead is utterly fantastic, considering the entire population of Japan at the time, women and children included was under 70 million. None the less it would have been bloody, and it is very probably that the dead on BOTH sides would have totalled more than 250,000, which is the upper estimate for deaths resulting from Hiroshima and nagasaki

I can recommend about 40 books on the subject, but the best is probably the more recent:
Downfall: by Richard B Frank.
Japan's War: by Edwin Hoyt
The Decision to Surrender: Akira Iryie
Japan's Longest day: Pacific war Research Society (Japan)


Dont make me say this again.

[Vermillion]

Oh and another thing, you people need to read more about the subject. There was an incredibly effective blockade of the Home islands going on since April of 1945. It was hugely effective, destroying some 90% of Japanese shipping. It was done through a combination of air-power and submarines, with heavy warships filling in the gaps. Inland waterways and ports were hit with vast numbers or areally dropped mines, which still kill the occasional fisherman to this day.

There was a blockade, it was working fine, japan was not surrendering.

They had been out of oil for months, pilots did their training in wooden models on the ground because of the lack of fuel for training. There were no cars, no motorcycles, all their oil was the dregs of emergency reserv and the tiny amount they could synthesizse from coal, a technology they obtained from nazi germany by the way...



I can recommend a couple really good survey texts of the war in the Pacific if you people want, help fill in these gaps for you...

[Pyr0 MK III]

Originally posted by Ste
firstly it was over 50 years ago, morals have improved

utter ********

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Vermillion

Long. But readable enough.

Misses a couple of things.

First, given the information Truman had at the time, what would you have done? Nagasaki or Tokyo harbor? Personally, if I only had two bombs my second one would definitely hit something that would dampen their war effort. My first one might go to the harbor, I don't know, but if only had two bombs (correct?) I certainly wouldn't waste the second one if I wasn't sure the war would immediately be over.

Secondly, the actual subject of the thread is the comparison of the nuking and WTC. You didn't even touch it.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by acropolis

First, given the information Truman had at the time, what would you have done? Nagasaki or Tokyo harbor?

They had two with the promise of a third within a matter of weeks, but they were told it would be months before the fourth.

Of course I would have hit Nagasaki. The destructive power of the bomb was less than that of a thousand bomber B-29 raid, which I had been ordering every 7 or 8 days for the last 5 months. The japanese had been given every moment to surrender and then some, every possesion they owned in the Pacific was isolated or gone, and the prospect of another, bloodier Normandy was very unappealing. Tokyo harbour would show off a big flash to those who saw it. nagasaki would blow another japanese town into ruins, just like the many dozens of other towns destroyed from the air in 1945.

Secondly, the actual subject of the thread is the comparison of the nuking and WTC.

True. Because, in my humble opinion, it is an absurd comparason. Both involved significantly large explosions and caused buildings to collapse.

[Jammers]

Originally posted by ELeeming


Name one naval blockade that has been effective?

Britain, WW1 and WW2 until rationing was introduced, and it helped that Britain had farms and allotments etc to grow some food for themselves, whereas most of Japan is either mountains or cities, neither of which is a particularly productive area to grow crops.

Cuban missile crisis, slightly different objectives to Japan, and a lot closer to the US mainland but it still prevented all Soviet weaponary from reaching Cuba till an agreement could be reached.

Falklands War, helped stop the Argentinians from landing reinforcements, making the actual invasion easier.

i am a smarter man today and i now intend to purchase a new book to read. thanks vermillion.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Vermillion

What do you think the odds were on Japan surrendering to Russia had not the second bomb been dropped? (serious question)

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Nodrog
What do you think the odds were on Japan surrendering to Russia had not the second bomb been dropped? (serious question)

Actually an excellent question. Hads the Allies been willing to wait about 2-3 months, then the odds would have been reasonable. All counter-factual thinking like this is just educated guessing, but had the Kwangtung army been entirley destroyed, it would have crippled the last straw of military might the Japanese had. At that point, the Doves would certainly have had the upper hand in the cabinet. But it would have taken months to sort that out. The army was bent on an apocalyptic final battle.

The odds of Japanese surrender would have been higher had the Soviets and Allies presented a united front, but the USSR did not inform the Allies of its actions or its intentions.

Best guess? Assuming the Japanese power on the continent is wiped out by the Red Army and the Western allies continue the blockade and conventional bombing... 50% chance Japanese surrender by December 1.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by ELeeming

Name one naval blockade that has been effective?

WW2, Western Allies against Japan, 1945. Devastating blockade shut down refineries and factories, stopped machine shops, crushed what was left of the economy. Destroyed somewhere about 80-90% of Japan's Merchant marine, even prevented any kind of offshore troop or equipment movements.

[Lord Zor]

um I hate to say this but with Hiroshima and Nagasaki there where leaflets droped saying get out of the cities by US planes

[Kegluneq]

Since I've been researching this area for History Coursework, I think I can provide a valid viewpoint.

First of all, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in no way essential. Many military leaders at the time - including Eisenhower, Churchill and MacArthur* - did not believe the bomb essential for winning the war, at least from the military point of view. In fact, there were several options available to the Allies that would have circumvented use of the weapon (based on alternatives provided by advisers to Pres. Truman):-

1-Follow up on Japanese peace feelers. Yes, some Japanese diplomats were attempting to negotiate peace before the dropping of the bomb. It was militant Japanese who felt the security of the Emperor was threatened who kept the war going to the bitter end - they were by no means united.

2-Continue the blockade and bombardment of Japan. Would have eventually been successful (Japan has little land for farming, and very few natural resources), but victory in Europe put pressure on Allies to quickly end war in Pacific.

3-Have Russia declare war on Japan. With Russian troops in Manchuria, a reversal of the neutrality pact between the two countries would have destroyed Japans trade routes and crippled the economy - as well as providing a formidable foe. USA was very much against allowing USSR a place in the running of post-war Japan, and an excuse to stay in Manchuria.

4-Simply warn Tokyo about the bomb and threaten its use. Would have made sense, but other factors affected this - see below. Could also have simply demonstrated the bomb by blasting an uninhabited island/area with international observers.

5-Carry out a land invasion - could have resulted in up to a million allied casualties.

It was also widely believed among scientists working on the project that use of the bomb was unethical, and would be a blot on America's military record.

Very few modern historians actually give credence to the idea that the bomb was dropped to simply end the war and spare US lives (if you know of some who do, please tell me, because it would make my coursework a lot easier :-)

So, if there were alternatives, why did America drop the bombs? There are three seperate reasons. First was the American paranoia of Russia - Communist advances into Eastern europe intimidated the West, and were shaping up to be a potent post-war threat. Development of the nuke - and demonstration thereof - would have given the USA a powerful propaganda weapon, and could be used to scare the Reds out of Europe.

Second was simple racism. Ever since Pearl Harbor, the American media had portrayed the Japanese as being either sub-human savages, or scheming, dwarfish orientals. Don't underestimate this factor - in December 1944, a gallup poll revealed 13% of americans recommended the 'extermination of all Japanese'. Truman himself said; 'When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast'. This was five days after Hiroshima was destroyed.

Third, however, is most important. Simply, the cost of development of the bomb demanded that it be used in a military arena. It had been developed for use on the Third Reich, but Germany capitulated before the bomb was complete. Plans for use of the bomb were transferred to the Pacific conflict, under the Roosevelt administration. When Roosevelt died, Truman simply carried on with plans made previously, not questioning the need for the bomb to be used at all. The question of the bomb was not should the bomb be used, but when and where. Where should have been simple - a shortlist of cities had been made that were legitimate targets (I'm not sure if Hiroshima was listed or not) - cities like Tokyo and Kyoto were excluded for their cultural and historical importance. When was easier - before Russia entered the war. America were keen to end the war before the USSR strengthened its foothold in the Far East.



To conclude, the bomb was dropped as a weapon of terror, not as a tactical tool, but a tool of fear - to shock Japan into a very quick surrender, and impose their power on (an unimpressed) Russia. To waste so many lives was unessential - it merely satiated the bloodlust of the american public, and shocked the world. Comparisons with the WTC are, perhaps, a little unfair, but both attacks had the simple intent of shocking the world with slaughter on an appalling scale, with no warning and no need.

(Sorry about the poorly constructed post, but hey, I'm tired. I'll post historians whose work I've researched later, if you have questions.)


*Despite being Commander-in-Chief in the Pacific, Gen. MacArthur actually had no say in the use of the bomb, despite the cooperation needed between the army, navy and air force.

[Kegluneq]

Originally posted by Lord Zor
um I hate to say this but with Hiroshima and Nagasaki there where leaflets droped saying get out of the cities by US planes

Wasn't that nationwide? As in, they were dropped on many cities, not just Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

[Lord Zor]

Originally posted by Kegluneq


Wasn't that nationwide? As in, they were dropped on many cities, not just Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

they were droped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Kegluneq
First was the American paranoia of Russia

Second was simple racism.

Third, however, is most important.

To conclude, the bomb was dropped as a weapon of terror, not as a tactical tool, but a tool of fear - to shock Japan into a very quick surrender, and impose their power on (an unimpressed) Russia. To waste so many lives was unessential - it merely satiated the bloodlust of the american public, and shocked the world. Comparisons with the WTC are, perhaps, a little unfair, but both attacks had the simple intent of shocking the world with slaughter on an appalling scale, with no warning and no need.

Actually the main reason we dropped the bomb on Japan was that we were at war with them. Which is also why we didn't drop one on, say, Tanzania, even though that would have demonstrated to the Russians, been acceptable to the racist ******* Americans, and would have used the very expensive bombs. Not sure how that little 'war' point slipped off your radar.

Overall a little revisionist but also an interesting viewpoint. But you make Vermillion look conservative and that's pretty scary.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Kegluneq
1-Follow up on Japanese peace feelers. Yes, some Japanese diplomats were attempting to negotiate peace before the dropping of the bomb. It was militant Japanese who felt the security of the Emperor was threatened who kept the war going to the bitter end - they were by no means united.

True, but the militants were in control, and had already made very clearvthey would assassinate or arrest anyone who vigourously opposed them.

2-Continue the blockade and bombardment of Japan. Would have eventually been successful (Japan has little land for farming, and very few natural resources), but victory in Europe put pressure on Allies to quickly end war in Pacific.

How could it have been more successful than it was? Japan no longer had an economy, the blockade was total, and the USAF was predicting that by November 1945 they would have run out of primary and secondary targets, so wide was the bombing devastation. There was little more damage you could do that had not already been done.

3-Have Russia declare war on Japan.

They did. It took a lot more than that to cause the japanese to surrender.

4-Simply warn Tokyo about the bomb and threaten its use. Would have made sense,

They did. Made no difference at all.

Very few modern historians actually give credence to the idea that the bomb was dropped to simply end the war and spare US lives (if you know of some who do, please tell me, because it would make my coursework a lot easier :-)

How about almost all of them, starting with the ones I listed above? Obviously the decision was not taken in a vaccum, no decision it. The racist factor played a part in allowing them to make the decision to drop the bomb no question.

You say Truman jusy followed Rooseveldt's policies blindly, but he had no knowledge at all of the bomb, or his predecessor's intentions until he became president, and he made the decision on its own merit. The fear of Russia card is overplayed. At this point, it was a serious concern, but not much more among the US administration, and there were a lot better ways to 'show off' to the Russian without vapourising two cities. You say that most historians agree that it was not a sound military decision... could you mention one please? I would be most curious.

To conclude, the bomb was dropped as a weapon of terror, not as a tactical tool, but a tool of fear - to shock Japan into a very quick surrender, and impose their power on (an unimpressed) Russia

I could not disagree more. It was no more a tool of terror than the regular bombings going on at the time. Was there a part of those bombings meant to scare Japan into surrender? Of course, but to say it was not used as a weapon for military means it to have not read at all into the actions of the Japanese government prior to, during and after the bombings, not to mention the records of the meeting in which the decision was taken.

And if it was just to impress the Russians, then why had Truman told Stalin about the Bomb at the Potsdam meeting? To which stalin was totally unimpressed, having heard about the Trinity test before Truman did...

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Lord Zor


they were droped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I think his point was that leaflets were used prior to many of the US large-formation raids over Tokyo and other cities as well. They were not only used to warn about the atomic bombs.

[Tactitus]

Originally posted by ELeeming
Name one naval blockade that has been effective?

Depends how you define "effective." Blockades can disrupt the flow of materials and goods, and can ultimately cripple an economy. However, that doesn't always translate into immediate or ultimate victory. It can take many months or years for all the effects of a blockade to be felt; and even then, if the enemy decides to fight on you may still have to defeat his remaining--though hopefully weakened--forces. Blockades can be effective strangle holds, but they are rarely effective knock-out punches.

[Kegluneq]

[quote]Originally posted by Vermillion
[b]

Yargh, I'm too tired for a decent counter argument. I'll agree my answer was poorly written, mostly because I borrowed heavily from other historians then added my own opinions. It didn't help that the part I borrowed was part of the argument, not the conclusion.

Still, my point stands about historians being eventually against the idea that the sole reason for dropping the bomb was as a military weapon. Most books I've read will aknowledge the idea, but give other theories (paranoia of Russia, or Truman's unwillingness to change certain plans when he came into office) greater credence. It's a general view that the bomb was not essential. I'll look into the books you suggested, though.

I didn't mean to say it wasn't a sound military decision, merely an unessential one. Historians such as Gar Alperovitz, P.M.S. Blackett (yeah, I know he was discredited, but hey) Martin J Sherman, Michael S Sherry, Robert Messer, Skates, Bird, Pape, Miles (I'm trawling annotated bibliographies, by the way) all agree that a land invasion would not be inevitable without use of the bomb.

I know my conclusion was crappy, it's what you get when the walking dead try to get their post back on topic. Having actually read your post properly, I agree with a lot of what you say - except about the warning. AFAIK, the bombing of Hiroshima was unannounced, with no warning of the weapons power given to the Japanese. Also, Truman was not aware that Stalin had foreknowledge of the bomb - he merely told him that the Americans had a new weapon of mass destruction. Stalin responded by saying he hoped that they would use it against the Japanese. The bomb was never mentioned by name.

I guess that my real conclusion would be that, despite alternatives present, the Americans proceded to drop the two most lethal bombs used in war on civilian targets, without adequate warning, killing tens of thousands and contaminating the land. Only because the attack occured during a war prevented it from being seen as a moral atrocity hundreds of times worse than the WTC. IMO, any attack on a civilian target is wrong, even during war.

Do you have any websites that support your opinion?
^
|
|
Genuine request

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Vermillion (or/and Kegluneq, cannot be sure)

To conclude, the bomb was dropped as a weapon of terror, not as a tactical tool, but a tool of fear - to shock Japan into a very quick surrender, and impose their power on (an unimpressed) Russia. To waste so many lives was unessential - it merely satiated the bloodlust of the american public, and shocked the world. Comparisons with the WTC are, perhaps, a little unfair, but both attacks had the simple intent of shocking the world with slaughter on an appalling scale, with no warning and no need.

I guess that my real conclusion would be that, despite alternatives present, the Americans proceded to drop the two most lethal bombs used in war on civilian targets, without adequate warning, killing tens of thousands and contaminating the land. Only because the attack occured during a war prevented it from being seen as a moral atrocity hundreds of times worse than the WTC. IMO, any attack on a civilian target is wrong, even during war.

(due poor skills VB code by Kegluneq, I was unable to comperhend wich part of his post was written by Vermillion, and wich wasn't, so it's going to be a general quote on Vermillion (and potentially Kegluneq) here.

Check the underlinings.

Wich is exactly my point. The fact that the bombardments where made during wartime doesn't make it any less terrorism than the attacks on WTC - wich makes the Americans look awfully hypocrite untill they confess and apologize on the nukes. Otherwise, the general level of trust on their war against 'Terrorism' is quite low, thus making the war in vain - in my eyes.

It was a moral atrocity in the same league with the WTC strikes. Maybe even worse one. Go figure out then.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Kegluneq


Do you have any websites that support your opinion?
^
|
|
Genuine request

he cited books earlier, by title and author, and offered 40 more if you wanted them.

Oh yeah, and he's a historian and NOT american to boot.

Finally, "Hindsight is 20/20." What we know now is not necessarily what we knew then, as concrete information may be easy to collect AFTER a war, but is either difficult or suspect DURING war. Sadly, as Vermillion indirectly pointed out so adeptly, lots of information is either ignored, or accounted for despite it being post-war information, by those who wish to argue against the bombings.

Were they horrific? NO ONE will debate that. Despite the large #'s of nuclear weapons, none have been used since outside of testing. The effects were not fully understood then, but once we realized the long-term consequences, the weapon no longer became viable outside of a MAD scenario.

Were they necessary? Yes. There is no debate as to whether the bombs or their targets were truly unecessary. The targets had military value, and the war had gone on long enough. The only debate was if there was another way, and still, we cannot know for sure as that path was not chosen. We can only look at the situation and the reasoning, and in that light, the decision was sound.

As for comparing them, like stated earlier, the two are different in so many aspects they are incomparable.

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
*snip*

Lets be honest, the subject is WAR. It's horrific, it's terrible, people die in droves, and it's often in vain.

Morality in war is a tenuous concept at best, as everything must be evaluated from a cold, factual standpoint. When you fight, the ultimate goal is to destroy the combat power of the opposing force.

There are 3 ways to accomplish this:

1> Destroy enemy troops/equipment.

2> Destroy enemy supply lines, and force the enemy units to expend what they have.

3> Destroy enemy manufacturing centers/war stock/communications.

#1 had been accomplished, no intent to surrender

#2 had been accomplished, no intent to surrender

#3 was the final unaccomplished objective. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both industrial centers. The two effects intended was to demonstrate that the US would be able to literally destroy the entire island and the Japanese would not be able to fight back, and wiped out 2 of the last remaining industrial centers left to them in one fell swoop.

The WTC attacks did none of this and never would have, nor was it intended to. It was intended entirely as a revenge strike/statement with no tactical/strategic value whatsoever.

PS. Yes, the intent was to scare the Japanese into surrender, but it was not the ONLY intent. Had they not surrendered and invasion become inevitable, crucial war objectives had been met.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Sandsnake


-Listing, Read up-

#3 was the final unaccomplished objective. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both industrial centers. The two effects intended was to demonstrate that the US would be able to literally destroy the entire island and the Japanese would not be able to fight back, and wiped out 2 of the last remaining industrial centers left to them in one fell swoop.

The WTC attacks did none of this and never would have, nor was it intended to. It was intended entirely as a revenge strike/statement with no tactical/strategic value whatsoever.

PS. Yes, the intent was to scare the Japanese into surrender, but it was not the ONLY intent. Had they not surrendered and invasion become inevitable, crucial war objectives had been met.

Were you aware that, the Japanese were planning to surrender in the near days (That is, what my history book says, but I am now aware of the facts you have been taught, but it can be wrong as well as everything concerning the morals and TRUE purposes of the strikes), but Truman wanted to test the bombs when he had a situation to do so in - carpe diem, he seized the moment. In any case, the nuclear bombardment was not only a war-tactical move - they could've used normal bombers to cut down the factories, as there was no real resistance in the jap airzone above Hiroshima nor Nagasaki (wich can be proven by the fact that there was a 2-aircraft convoy escorting the plane with little boy in it, and another of those planes was for photo & video and another was for reading radiation values). It was, not only a tactical move with overestimating enemy strength (or intentionally slaughtering a bit extra), but also a test with the bomb - the original target was an empty city (just to show the japs what the nuke can do, to push them to surrender), but it was changed to dwelled cities in order to see the effects of nuclear weaponry on human beings. In addition to the fact that it was a slaughter targetted on civilians, the Americans had until the day of bombardment spoken loudly for sparing civilian lives during wartime situations. Since WW1. Those morals were abandoned in order to conduct scientific research and satisfy bloodlust.

The Japanese were nuke-test-dummies.

Still we are left with unnecessary use of crude force.

Thought about it that way?

The WTC attack did have tactical value. At least for Al Qaeda. You fail to see it as a piece of politics (I repeat, war is just an extreme way of politics). Or do you?

[Sandsnake]

Originally posted by Tietäjä
(That is, what my history book says, but I am now aware of the facts you have been taught, but it can be wrong as well as everything concerning the morals and TRUE purposes of the strikes)

Hate to say it, but you've already had a historian say your books are wrong. Read Vermillion's posts for an account of what happened. Even if it were true, what we know NOW and what we knew then are two completely different things. We knew the bombs would work, we'd already set one off. There was some uncertainty, yes, since they'd never been actually used in such a setting.

As for regular bombing, what's the DIFFERENCE? you're saying that nuking the cities was horrible, but advocating carpet bombing in the same breath. That's a massive contradiction. Destruction is destruction is destruction, whether it was one bomb or one thousand. The long-term effects cannot be used as an argument as we didn't even KNOW.

The only thing the US can be considered guilty of in that situation is utilizing a vastly powerful weapon before we fully understood it, and even that isn't a very strong argument due to the circumstances surrounding the bombing.

The war had been going on for four years, and the US had gotten several bitter tastes of marine invasion with Normandy, Okinawa, and several other operations under their belts. losing 34,000 marines in 3 days taking okinawa spoke volumes of what trying to take mainland Japan would have been like.

You also completely disregard Japanese culture, beliefs, and traditions. Having been to Japan myself, I can assure you that even today it's so different from western culture as to almost alien. Surrender is not something Japanese do on a scale of western cultures. Mass suicides were quite common when islands were taken, as well as fighting to the last man, woman, and child. We faced not just the Japanese army, but the population as well. Honor was more than just a passing notion to them, and even today, disgrace is not something that is borne lightly.

Finally, while the US message was "Surrender and we'll stop," the Al-Qaida message is "Death to the West." Peace is not an option in their minds until we are dead.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Sandsnake


As for regular bombing, what's the DIFFERENCE? you're saying that nuking the cities was horrible, but advocating carpet bombing in the same breath. That's a massive contradiction. Destruction is destruction is destruction, whether it was one bomb or one thousand. The long-term effects cannot be used as an argument as we didn't even KNOW.

The only thing the US can be considered guilty of in that situation is utilizing a vastly powerful weapon before we fully understood it, and even that isn't a very strong argument due to the circumstances surrounding the bombing.

The war had been going on for four years, and the US had gotten several bitter tastes of marine invasion with Normandy, Okinawa, and several other operations under their belts. losing 34,000 marines in 3 days taking okinawa spoke volumes of what trying to take mainland Japan would have been like.

You also completely disregard Japanese culture, beliefs, and traditions. Having been to Japan myself, I can assure you that even today it's so different from western culture as to almost alien. Surrender is not something Japanese do on a scale of western cultures. Mass suicides were quite common when islands were taken, as well as fighting to the last man, woman, and child. We faced not just the Japanese army, but the population as well. Honor was more than just a passing notion to them, and even today, disgrace is not something that is borne lightly.

Finally, while the US message was "Surrender and we'll stop," the Al-Qaida message is "Death to the West." Peace is not an option in their minds until we are dead.

It is possible that the japs would have surrendered soon without bombardment. You cannot deny that, even if a historian said otherwise - there's really no denial to what 'could have happened'. So it's merely speculating. So I'll leave that alone.

What comes to me advocating bombing and saying nuking was horrible, you seem to have missed the point. Or not. I see a significant difference with bombarding a factory, two, or maybe three with bombs (accuracy of bombardment at that time was already good enough to aim specific goals, see a bit further). There is a difference between dropping a nuke in the middle of the city and dropping a bomb or two into a factory (with accuracy, the nuke targettet a bridge in Hiroshima if I am not incorrect).

Anything else you wanted to say about HORRIBLE destruction and deaths of ~250k (instant, calculated Hiroshima+Nagasaki) and a wrecked pair of cities by a nuke in compared to a few riddanced factories and maybe couple of thousand deaths caused by precision bombardments. I can see the difference there. Can you? I cannot see any contradiction there, as I am trying to tell you how much less damage on civilians could have been inflicted with the same 'military tactical' effects.

Circumstances surrounding the bombing, such as?

And I doubt I completely disregard Japanese culture, Sandsnake, I have been in Japan myself too (doing a graduation in Aikido). But I disbelieve they had gone to insanities even with their morals - They wouldn't have fought into last man/woman/child, or if they had, they had continued even after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just to conduct their code. They could've easily inflicted US some several damage with suicide strikes even after the nukes, but they didn't continue to fight even if you just said they would have fought to last man/woman/child. YES, I am aware of their morality for what comes to surrendering, retreating, backstabbing, and many other things. Honor and pride is what even the ancient samurai valued the most. I carry seven codes of conduct of the samurai on my hakama every time I train.

So please do not lecture me about their morals. I know them well enough. And I also know they were ready to bend on their morals to avoid slaughter, even they aren't ready to fight to last woman/man/child to avoid surrendering and to draw even the last bit of enemy blood they can. Even if surrendering was grossly against their values. They aren't idiots. (Btw, speaking of contradictions, you said that the japs would fight till the last jap but still they surrendered?).

Yes, I am aware of the fact that the WTC strikes weren't similar in moral nor purpose, but they had similarities. They have been listed a thousand times above, even by a historian. Then pounce up and read the few original posts and see why my point on the similarities is already proven. I agree that there are differencies. I also agree that there are similarities - for me, there are enough similarities for both of the strikes to be called terrorism. You may form your opinion.

[Geeza]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

(Btw, speaking of contradictions, you said that the japs would fight till the last jap but still they surrendered?).

I wasn't going to quote it all (and im not a hisotrian, nor am i super intelligent) but I think the point is:

Faced with an invading force/convential fighting techniques, you might well be prepared to fight and die in combat.

Faced with destruction by just a few well placed bombs from an enemy you wouldn't ever get to see or fight you might consider surrender

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

Were you aware that, the Japanese were planning to surrender in the near days (That is, what my history book says, but I am now aware of the facts you have been taught, but it can be wrong as well as everything concerning the morals and TRUE purposes of the strikes),

This book is wrong. And despite what you say, we actually can predict what would have happened, fairly easily. We can examine the actions and intentions of those involved, we can read their journals and notes, we can examine transcripts of the cabinet meetings.

They were not going to surrender even after two bombs and the invasion of Manchuria. They debated the issue and decided to fight on. let me make this clear. They decided to not surrender.

Only with the intervention of the emperor did the debate resume, and when he convinced the cabinet to surrender, there was an attempted coup against the emperor.

You ask about the contradiction of the japanese 'no surrender' motif, and the fact that they did surrender. I already explained that the emperor's announcement caused riots and suicides in barraks across the country, and the only reason that there was not worse is because it was the emperor himself who delivered the order.

the original target was an empty city (just to show the japs what the nuke can do, to push them to surrender), but it was changed to dwelled cities in order to see the effects of nuclear weaponry on human beings.

Again, thats not true at all. three targets were considered, two cities and one was off the Bay of Tokyo. They never considered dropping it on an empty city (partly because, what is an empty city, exactly?) they used it as they would any other weapon of war.

In addition to the fact that it was a slaughter targetted on civilians, the Americans had until the day of bombardment spoken loudly for sparing civilian lives during wartime situations. Since WW1.

During the interwar years, many nation (including Germany) spoke out against the use of areal boming against civilian targets, largely because the actual damage and effect on the population was vastly overestimated. But during the war I suspect you will find that the opinions of everyone changed. Yes the US was guilty of duisobeying its pre-war moral stance, but then again so was... every other nation in the world equally.

Hiroshima was an untouched city. Had the US thrown a three wave 20 hour bombing raid against it, like they did against Tokyo on march 3-4, would the casualties have been more? Less? Nobody understood the effects of secondary radiation, it was entirely unpredicted. Using hindsight, you separate this weapon as being something it was not, some special, unique weapon which is not allowed to be used like other weapons. In the cold war it certainly became that, but in July of 1945, it was just a way of delivering 9 kilotons of tnt onto a target.

As for the books you mention, I know some of them well and you had better reread them.
Alperovitz: The decision to use the atomic bomb: examines the many factors which led to the bomb being dropped, and obviously there were many factors, no decision is taken in a vacuum. But he also states quite clearly that the primary reason was military necessity. He does say that the bombs might have been unecessary with Russia entering the war, but does not address the issue that Russia told the west nothing about the time and intentions of its invasion of manchuria, past a general comment at Potsdam.
Michael Sherry takes issue with the whole nature of the air campaign, his thesis is that the entire mass bombing offensive against japan was unecessary, though he notably fails to address the failure of every precision bombing campaign in the war at that time. So while he states there was limited value to the Atomic strikes, his basic thesis presupposes that position.
Ferrel and Messer are even better, Ferrel states as his principle thesis that the decision to save american lives, regardless of the figure, was the primary decision in using the atomic bomb.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Vermillion


This book is wrong. And despite what you say, we actually can predict what would have happened, fairly easily. We can examine the actions and intentions of those involved, we can read their journals and notes, we can examine transcripts of the cabinet meetings.

They were not going to surrender even after two bombs and the invasion of Manchuria. They debated the issue and decided to fight on. let me make this clear. They decided to not surrender.

Only with the intervention of the emperor did the debate resume, and when he convinced the cabinet to surrender, there was an attempted coup against the emperor.

You ask about the contradiction of the japanese 'no surrender' motif, and the fact that they did surrender. I already explained that the emperor's announcement caused riots and suicides in barraks across the country, and the only reason that there was not worse is because it was the emperor himself who delivered the order.

As for the books you mention, I know some of them well and you had better reread them.

Mkay, as a historian, you'll obviously know better. I still wonder why the emperor decided to surrender after nuclear bombs - even if the war was lost before the nuclear strikes. Why didn't he decide to call it off before, to end the bloodshed, or was it necessary in some way to continue it? You'll prolly have an answer for this one too, it's just strange for the head of the people to surrender before the people.

Wich books do you mean by that? The only two I mentioned, were my old history book (wich we went through already) and Sun Tzu's Art of War (wich I am currently reading). Beyond those I have not, as far as I am aware of, made any quotes nor comparisons.

Beyond that, comparing WTC to 6.6 and 9.6 bombardments is merely an opinion - I consider them in many ways alike, though in many ways unalike. Wich was my bottom.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

I see a significant difference with bombarding a factory, two, or maybe three with bombs (accuracy of bombardment at that time was already good enough to aim specific goals, see a bit further). There is a difference between dropping a nuke in the middle of the city and dropping a bomb or two into a factory (with accuracy, the nuke targettet a bridge in Hiroshima if I am not incorrect).

Again, No. The conventional air war against japanese cities was one of incendiaries and firestorms, massive destruction on a city wide scale, meant to 'dehouse the workers and damage the factories'. One raid alone burned 16 square km of central Tokyo. Precision bombing was a complete failure over Germany and it was hardly even tried over japan.

Anything else you wanted to say about HORRIBLE destruction and deaths of ~250k (instant, calculated Hiroshima+Nagasaki) and a wrecked pair of cities by a nuke in compared to a few riddanced factories and maybe couple of thousand deaths caused by precision bombardments. I can see the difference there.

Conventional Bombing of japan between march and August 1945 killed about 700,000 japanese, though the exact numbers are unknown due to the numbers of refugees and other uncounted people cremated in the massive firestorms.

If you genuinely believe that the conventional bombing of japan was precision bombing aimed at 'a few factories' then you really need to do some more research into this field. In fact the exact opposite is the case, due to the diffuse and congested nature of the japanese war production eceonomy, and the complete failure of precision bombing over Europe, there was NO attempt to use precision conventional bombing against japan.

And I doubt I completely disregard Japanese culture, Sandsnake, I have been in Japan myself too (doing a graduation in Aikido). But I disbelieve they had gone to insanities even with their morals - They wouldn't have fought into last man/woman/child,

Survival/prisoner rates for japanese soldiers and auxilliaries varied throughout the war. At Tarawa, the first major engagement, 99.4% of the japanese defenders died. At Iwo Jima, much later in the war, Japanese soldiers were more likely to surrender. There only 94.7% of japanese soldiers died.

Even the Hitler Jugend had a 50-60% death rate, and THEY were fanatical.

At Okinawa, about a quarter of the 110,000 civilian casualties were mass suicides, including one mass suicide of over 4000 people.

even they aren't ready to fight to last woman/man/child to avoid surrendering and to draw even the last bit of enemy blood they can. Even if surrendering was grossly against their values. They aren't idiots.

Do some reading into the Ketsu Go plan for the defence of the Homeland. This was not some hypothetical plan, it was already being instituted and training was underway.

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Vermillion

Survival/prisoner rates for japanese soldiers and auxilliaries varied throughout the war. At Tarawa, the first major engagement, 99.4% of the japanese defenders died. At Iwo Jima, much later in the war, Japanese soldiers were more likely to surrender. There only 94.7% of japanese soldiers died.

Do some reading into the Ketsu Go plan for the defence of the Homeland. This was not some hypothetical plan, it was already being instituted and training was underway.

Mkay, accepted on bombings - But I still wouldn't approve testing a weapon on civilians on wartime, or primarily targetting a city full of civilians to scare an enemy to surrender.

Though the Japanese did surrender - I am not sure if it was the Emperor's descision alone or did any of the people support him at all - they could've well surrendered merely because the Emperor wanted to, though there must have been some support among the people. Am I harshly wrong here?

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

Mkay, as a historian, you'll obviously know better. I still wonder why the emperor decided to surrender after nuclear bombs - even if the war was lost before the nuclear strikes. Why didn't he decide to call it off before, to end the bloodshed, or was it necessary in some way to continue it?

The role of the Emperor in japan was extremely complicated. He held a position of extreme power, and extreme weakness. In theory he still maintained ultimate power, but it was not enshrined, and a system existed to make decisions in the Cabinet. Furthermore, all people swore alleigiance to him, and revered him as a symbol.

His power was as a symbol, and he could not get involved in day to day affairs or political disputes because that would tarnish his image. He had to pick his battles very carefully, and did so, intervening only twice in the entire war. The people did not surrender because they still thought they could win. The media description of the war was at total odds with reality, and many japanese thought the war was being won until the day that they could see enemy ships offshore. This was the ultimate symbol of the failure of the navy. At Midway, the media claimed to have sunk 5 times as many American ships as the Japanese had lost.

Someone a long time ago, I learned about this in calss and do not remember the reference... some one in the early 1950s went through official japanese releases and counted up the ships of the enemy they 'claimed' to have sunk. Apparently the japanese Navy sunk more ships then the entire floating stock of the entire world put together. Impressive.


The 1-2-3 punch of the two bombs and the loss of manchuria convinced the Emperor that peace was essential. He had already been on the side of the doves, but was afraid of a coup (with good cause, as there was one the day he surrendered) if he intervened when there was still hope. These big three events convinced him that all hope was lost, and so he stepped in.

Japan did not have BBC World to listen to like the Germans, they did not have access to world media, they knew what they were told, and even though by the end few believed the Official media, they did not have the truth as an alternative.

[Tietäjä]

originally posted by Vermillion
His power was as a symbol, and he could not get involved in day to day affairs or political disputes because that would tarnish his image. He had to pick his battles very carefully, and did so, intervening only twice in the entire war. The people did not surrender because they still thought they could win. The media description of the war was at total odds with reality, and many japanese thought the war was being won until the day that they could see enemy ships offshore. This was the ultimate symbol of the failure of the navy. At Midway, the media claimed to have sunk 5 times as many American ships as the Japanese had lost.

So, the Japanese believed the war was a bit different from what it was in reality; So they wanted to continue fighting? Yet about the Emperor, if he had so weak power, how did he manage to keep the Japanese from just ignoring what he said, or as you suggested - taking him into custody, or locking him up somewhere?

In basics, if, the people (well, 95% of them) were against surrendering, how did the Emperor still managed to get the nation surrender (even if being a head of the cabinet at that point, or being in a leading role in politics), if the military was strong in power at that point? [edit]well, if we'd go dig the times of feudalism in Japan, we would find a reason there, but you kinda prevented from doing so naming the Emperor's power mainly symbolic. mkay, reading a bit up, was the fact that the people swore allegiance to him enough for him to stop the war and get the nation surrender? If so, why didn't he do it before? Did he believe he could win the war?[/edit]

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Kegluneq
Only because the attack occured during a war prevented it from being seen as a moral atrocity hundreds of times worse than the WTC.

heh.

Also, only because the carpet bombings occured during a war prevented them from being seen as a moral atrocity hundreds of times worse than the WTC.

You didn't make any point that would differentiate between the nukings and any other attack that happened during the war.

Originally posted by Tietäjä


So, the Japanese believed the war was a bit different from what it was in reality; So they wanted to continue fighting? Yet about the Emperor, if he had so weak power, how did he manage to keep the Japanese from just ignoring what he said, or as you suggested - taking him into custody, or locking him up somewhere?

Cuz they (the Japanese) were obedient types. They were told by their cabinet to surrender, so they did. Or committed suicide.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Tietäjä

So, the Japanese believed the war was a bit different from what it was in reality; So they wanted to continue fighting? Yet about the Emperor, if he had so weak power, how did he manage to keep the Japanese from just ignoring what he said, or as you suggested - taking him into custody, or locking him up somewhere?

His position was strength and weakness. People would obey his commands, they swore alegiance to him, and that meant far more to them than we can understand. He could comand life and death easily. But his position was weak. The hawks in the cabinet had arrested, intimidated or simply killed anyone who opposed them. Assassination was a political tool since the '20s. While nobody would ever harm the Emperor of course, they could easily have sequestered him, in 'protective custody' if he went too far against the will of the cabinet. He was in one sense all powerful, and in another extremely vulnerable.

This has always been the way in japan, in feodal japan the Emperor reigns supreme over his people, until he pushes to far and one of his retinue has him killed or sequestered.


And try not to think in so much black and white, people follow their leaders.

Churchill extolled heroic sacrifice so the British fought. But had halifax taken power and advocated an honourable settlement to preserve the nation, would the people have followed him? Almost certainly. The US wanted nothing to do with a war in Europe in 1940. In 1942 they were fanatical about dealing with Hitler and the Nazi menace. People follow their leaders.

In Japan, everyone had been extolling the virtues of heroic sacrifice, of strugle to the end, posters were put up of handsome kamikaze pilots and the glory they had earned for the Emperor. So people fought. When the emperor told people they were honourable and strong, but had beendefeated, and must now lay down their arms, they yelled and cried, and the millitary struggled a bit, but they surrendered.

[Kegluneq]

Originally posted by Tietäjä


(due poor skills VB code by Kegluneq, I was unable to comperhend wich part of his post was written by Vermillion, and wich wasn't, so it's going to be a general quote on Vermillion (and potentially Kegluneq) here.

Check the underlinings.

Wich is exactly my point. The fact that the bombardments where made during wartime doesn't make it any less terrorism than the attacks on WTC - wich makes the Americans look awfully hypocrite untill they confess and apologize on the nukes. Otherwise, the general level of trust on their war against 'Terrorism' is quite low, thus making the war in vain - in my eyes.

It was a moral atrocity in the same league with the WTC strikes. Maybe even worse one. Go figure out then.

Actually, that's all me. I apologise for my abysmal posting skills, my post count is my actual total. Apologies to to Vermillion/Sandsnake to if I sounded patronising asking for websites - I'll definately look into the books you suggested, but I won't be able to do that till the end of the week at least. A good website - such as a counterpoint to doug-long.com - I could look up in 15 seconds.

And acropolis - I guess I phrased that poorly as well. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is simply symptomatic of total war - the murder of civilians in largely non-military targets. I may be wrong - I've only just started researching the period properly - but as far as I know, most carpet bomb attacks were on legitimate military targets/storage areas, at least in theory. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were known to the american military (possibly not Truman) as illegitimate targets, but they went ahead anyway. In the end, carpet bombing leaves many wasted lives and many large holes. The atomic bombs left many dead, many horribly wounded and close to death, and a big radioactive hole in the ground.

Maybe the attacks were justifiably lethal. Maybe they did end the war conclusively. All I'm saying is the Americans had options other than nuking - of which they were well aware - but chose not to pursue. In the balance of war, nothing especially distinguishes the nukes - just another two cityfuls of lives lost, just a continuation of existing measures. In the end, the Americans had the worst weapon in the world, and decided to show it off.

Thanks for bearing with me.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Kegluneq



And acropolis - I guess I phrased that poorly as well. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is simply symptomatic of total war - the murder of civilians in largely non-military targets....

fair nuff.

I was going to compliment the improvement in your vb skills, but the link is broken:/ change the 'html' to 'htm' and it is good.

[QazokRouge5]

A minute of Silence!!
If you are still shaken by the horrifying scenes
of September 11, please observe 2 minutes of silence
for the 5,000 civilian lives lost in the New York,
Washington DC and Pennsylvania attacks.
While we're at it, let's have 13 minutes of silence
for the 130,000 Iraqi civilians killed in 1991 by
order of President Bush Sr.
Take another moment to remember how Americans
celebrated and cheered in the streets.
Now another 20 minutes of silence for the 200,000
Iranians killed by Iraqi soldiers using weapons and
money provided to young Saddam Hussein by the American
government before the great eagle turned all its power
against Iraq.
Another 15 minutes of silence for the Russians and
150,000 Afghans killed by the Talibaan troops who were
supported and trained by the CIA. Plus 10 minutes of silence for
100,000 Japanese
killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the Atomic bombs
dropped by the USA.
We've just kept quiet for one hour: two minute
for the Americans killed in NY, DC, and Pennsylvania,
58 minutes for their victims throughout the world. If you are still
in awe, let's have another hour
of silence for all those killed in Vietnam, which is
not something Americans like to admit. Or for the
massacre in Panama in 1989, where Americans
troops attacked poor villagers, leaving 20,000
Panamanians homeless and thousands more dead. Or for the millions of
children who have died because
of the USA embargo on Iraq and Cuba.
Or the hundreds of thousands brutally murdered
throughout the world by USA-sponsored civil wars and
coups d'etat (Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia,
Guatemala, El Salvador to name a few).
Now, let's talk about terrorism, shall we?

[Kegluneq]

Originally posted by acropolis
fair nuff.

I was going to compliment the improvement in your vb skills, but the link is broken:/ change the 'html' to 'htm' and it is good.

Done :-)

Think of how many wars have been avoided since 1945 BECAUSE the United States dropped those bombs. Dozens, at least.

And I'm glad to see the jealousy and flat out IGNORANCE on this board hasn't gone away. It reminds me once again why I don't play this piece of **** game.

[Cuddley_Battleship]

Originally posted by Texas Cop (TC)
Think of how many wars have been avoided since 1945 BECAUSE the United States dropped those bombs. Dozens, at least.

And I'm glad to see the jealousy and flat out IGNORANCE on this board hasn't gone away. It reminds me once again why I don't play this piece of **** game.

Hey TC, long time no see.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Texas Cop (TC)

And I'm glad to see the jealousy and flat out IGNORANCE on this board hasn't gone away. It reminds me once again why I don't play this piece of **** game.

Ah the irony. This board had had almost a full page and a half of intellectual discussion, with nearly no mudslinging or name-calling at all (Barring Rick as usual) and ended with a wonderful compromise of opinions...

Then you arrived with your insightful comment above.

[Cuddley_Battleship]

The "discussion" seemed a bit hypocritical to me.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Cuddley_Battleship
The "discussion" seemed a bit hypocritical to me.

Oh My God I KNOW I should not ask.... but

what on earth makes you say that?

[Cuddley_Battleship]

Originally posted by Vermillion


Oh My God I KNOW I should not ask.... but

what on earth makes you say that?

It's practically all anti-US flammage. You never see any holocaust discussion, no firebombing of Germany discussion, no Soviet purge discussion, all you see is Sept. 11, Hiroshima, and other things the US was involved in. It's quite sad.

[Vermillion]

Originally posted by Cuddley_Battleship
[b]

It's practically all anti-US flammage. You never see any holocaust discussion, no firebombing of Germany discussion, no Soviet purge discussion, all you see is Sept. 11, Hiroshima,

So, you have been payning no attention at all, have not read the thread and are just guessing then...

Ok, glad to know that...

[Tietäjä]

Originally posted by Cuddley_Battleship


It's practically all anti-US flammage. You never see any holocaust discussion, no firebombing of Germany discussion, no Soviet purge discussion, all you see is Sept. 11, Hiroshima, and other things the US was involved in. It's quite sad.

Read up mate.
And if it means so much to you, I can post a thread about nazi slaughter. Or the evil communism. Or the ancient Rome. Or whatever you wish.