Originally Posted by serandfae

You seem to conveniently forget the fact that Japan invaded us

No, not at all. "You forget that Japan invaded us" isn't relevant when we're talking about 9/11 or climate change, either. You're restating the obvious - something nobody could ever forget - purely for emotional reasons.

Originally Posted by serandfae

and had they had "the Bomb" they would not have hesitated to use it.

And if donkeys could fly, we'd all need really good umbrellas. All hypothetical.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Had an A-bomb been dropped at our naval base at Pearl Harbor, there would have been more civilian casualties than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that the things you're talking about didn't happen.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Those were military targets as well.

Bovine feces. If Nagasaki was a military target of any value, it would have been hit with at least 1 bomb before August 9, 1945.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Bottom line: we wanted unconditional surrender, they didn't give it to us, we used all we had at our disposal to ensure they did.

That sums it up completely. Japan's single condition attached to their surrender wasn't palatable, so we vaporized 2 cities to detach the condition. Saving a million lives is pure fantasy.

Notice I'm not making any judgment here, I'm merely pointing out a fact that historical revisionists seem uncomfortable with. I'm not saying it's good, bad, or off topic. But the overwhelming denial coming from most people in this thread indicates that other people (Feydakin, cbwm, etc) believe it was wrong to kill so many men, women, and children over the distinction between a conditional and unconditional surrender. If that wasn't true, people wouldn't be making up justifications that are utterly false. If most of the people in this thread felt it was ok to use atomic weapons against civilians to enact regime change, they would have said as much, like you just did, rather than pretending it was over some noble cause.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Japan's single condition attached to their surrender wasn't palatable, so we vaporized 2 cities to detach the condition. Saving a million lives is pure fantasy.

Notice I'm not making any judgment here, I'm merely pointing out a fact that historical revisionists seem uncomfortable with.

You have yet to quote a source for your revision of history. Japan had four conditions, amongst them was no occupation. You seem to ask the question, "What would have been so bad about leaving them or Hitler in power?". The real denial in this thread is yours, since you can't seem to get a grasp of these very basic facts.

When a regime attacks and kills your people without warning, when they slaughter over 1.5 million innocent people, many of which were worked to death as slave labor, I'd say regime change is in order. Apparently you disagree.

By the way, it is a bone many Republicans have to pick with Bush Sr. Had we effected regime change in Iraq when he invaded Kuwait, we wouldn't be dealing with this BS right now. The whole concept of trying to conduct a "Humane" war with laser precision bombing, etc etc etc is complete BS. War is inhumane. Embrace the horror and do what needs doing.

John, you seem to like to try and pick apart arguments without actually disproving them. And you flat out ignored the biggest point of all--using the A-Bomb did send a powerful message to the rest of the world: Don't start a war with the United States. Which was the same message sent to Germany, with conventional bombs, which killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. I dare you to challenge that fact. Again, as many have pointed out to you, war is an ugly business. If you don't have the stones for the fallout, don't start a war.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

Again, as many have pointed out to you, war is an ugly business. If you don't have the stones for the fallout, don't start a war.

tim

I think this point is what people do not understand. People don't realize the cost of war until they are in it.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

But the overwhelming denial coming from most people in this thread indicates that other people (Feydakin, cbwm, etc) believe it was wrong to kill so many men, women, and children over the distinction between a conditional and unconditional surrender.

If I'm included in that etc, to be fair, I wasn't in denial, when I asked about how/when Japan surrended I honestly just wasn't that familiar with the event. I didn't mean to nitpick what all unconditional/conditional entailed.

Originally Posted by serandfae

John, you seem to like to try and pick apart arguments without actually disproving them.

No, you're either misreading, or somehow you're not getting the point. What I've actually been doing is contesting opinions that are being presented as facts. I'm also contesting when you try to use things that didn't happen to make a historical argument, like "If the Japanese had had the Yankees they would have been to busy to get involved in WW2". Speculation is great fun, but that's all it is.

Many people in this thread - you included - are reaching conclusions based on false premises. I'm showing that the premises are false.

Originally Posted by serandfae

And you flat out ignored the biggest point of all--using the A-Bomb did send a powerful message to the rest of the world: Don't start a war with the United States.

Particularly to Stalin and the CCCP. I think this is the 3rd time I've said this, in this very thread. You're trying to disagree with me in a very showmanship like way, but the truth is there's no disagreement on this point.

Originally Posted by serandfae

I dare you to challenge that fact.

You seem greatly confused, but if you're daring me to challenge facts or "facts" that you've posted, here's one that needs challenging

You seem to conveniently forget the fact that Japan invaded us

Japan attacked us, but didn't invade. Big difference, in that thing we call the English language. No occupation. At the end of the day, that probably doesn't make sense to bring up, but since you're daring me to challenge facts, and also believe that people in the USA should speak English, I'll choose this "fact" to challenge, and I'll suggest that if we're going to speak a common language, we should all agree on what words mean.

Getting back to the question of this thread, tho, I'll repeat my answer. We used atomic weapons on the civilian population of two Japanese cities, to remove a condition from Japan's surrender, and to intimidate the Soviet Union. Saving American servicemen's lives had nothing to do with it, although this is very commonly given as a justification ex post facto.

That's my answer. Notice that there's no moralizing in it - only cause and effect based on history. As far as I can tell, you're making inferences you don't like based on the facts I spelled out, and you're challenging the messenger because you find the conclusions distasteful. That's human nature, but it's not logical, and it gets you no closer to truth. On the other hand, you (serandfa) are the only one with the gumption to say "yes, it was just" instead of offering bumper sticker lines to suggest that.

Though I doubt God Himself could convince you of this with an eyewitness view, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not civilian targets. I will grant you that our military and leadership knew that there would be a large number of civilian casualties, but civilians were not the primary target.

That said, throughout the United States' involvement in the Second World War decisions were made about bombing targets with the full knowledge that civilians would be in the line of fire. Again, the U.S. Military killed far more civilians with conventional bombs during the course of that war than Fat Man and Little Boy combined. What that means is that in the course of waging war, there will invariably be civilian casualties, and in a war of that scale they were high regardless of the type of weapon used.

The question then becomes academic: Should we bomb any country we're at war with? Have you heard of such a thing as a bomb that only kills people in uniform? And yes, I do have the cahones to say that if you're going to fight a war you fight to win. Minimizing civilian casualties should be a goal, but only the naiive would think that in any war they'll be remotely close to being eliminated.

tim

Originally Posted by serandfae

Though I doubt God Himself could convince you of this with an eyewitness view

You can doubt that, climate change, gravity, or anything else you'd like to. But you have to recognize that your doubts don't make it so. On that note, I know for a fact that you're intelligent enough to recognize that everybody claiming God as an eyewitness for their beliefs also doesn't make it so. It packs an emotional wallop, but goes no further.

If you'd like to convince me otherwise, you need to address the facts, not appeal to rhetoric. Example below, wrt "if you're going to fight a war you fight to win".

Originally Posted by serandfae

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not civilian targets.

And yet you haven't even addressed the fact that the first bomb that fell on either of these cities was an atom bomb.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Again, the U.S. Military killed far more civilians with conventional bombs during the course of that war than Fat Man and Little Boy combined.

Yes, I realize this, and you're speaking primarily of Dresden. That gets back to the Japanese owning the Yankees in 1945.

Originally Posted by serandfae

The question then becomes academic: Should we bomb any country we're at war with?

I guess that depends what you mean by academic. If you mean it's a question whose answer we can learn from, I agree with you.

Originally Posted by serandfae

And yes, I do have the cahones to say that if you're going to fight a war you fight to win.

Completely disingenuous. Littering Iraq and Afghanistan with hydrogen bombs would surely be a way to "fight to win" those wars, and yet nobody is suggesting we do that. Japan in Autumn 1945 offered us a surrender - accepting their surrender would by definition be a win.

It would be an easier win than dropping bombs, and not risk the aircraft delivering the payloads being shot down. We had already won the war - we were fighting to iron out details. Your quote "if you're going to fight a war you fight to win" is something nobody is disagreeing with, and the conclusion you reach from it is foregone - we had already won based on the fighting we'd done before the bombs.

Originally Posted by serandfae

Minimizing civilian casualties should be a goal, but only the naiive would think that in any war they'll be remotely close to being eliminated.

If you're trying to tell me it's naive to think we could have eliminated ~1/4 million civilian casualties by accepting a surrender instead of using atom bombs on cities - I'll have to admit I'm shocked at this insistence on arguing how things should be, rather than how they are or were. Of course without dropping atom bombs, there still would have been civilian casualties that happened earlier - nobody is trying to say it should be zero. Only that it shouldn't be needlessly inflated. All the straw men, emotional appeals, and the like, take a back seat to cold, hard facts, and I'm sorry if that bothers you.

But I notice you don't actually disagree with the answer I've given many times now to this question - only to interpretations you pull out of my answer.

So, instead of using the a-bomb like was done, what would your solution, with the benefit of 60+ years of hindsight, be??

During the early months of 1945, many more Japanese were killed in Tokyo by conventional bombs and the fires they caused than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

So, instead of using the a-bomb like was done, what would your solution, with the benefit of 60+ years of hindsight, be??

Thanks for asking! There are a few that jump to mind.

1. Accept a conditional surrender, let the Japanese keep their emperor who they believe is a god. If and only if this is an acceptable solution - nobody has really addressed that question, and it very well might not have been.
2. Accept their surrender, and force regime change diplomatically. Having just surrendered to avoid being wiped out, Japan wouldn't have been in much of a position to resist.
3. Play hard ball, refuse to accept their surrender, and wait for them to come back with a better offer. We still had the atomic ace up our sleeve, so calling their bluff wouldn't have cost us anything but a few days.
4. Accept that sometimes atomic weapons are the only way - but if that's the case, we should be thinking about using them in Iraq so we can win and leave. This could have changed things in our favor in Somalia, too.

If #4 is the answer, and it was entirely appropriate for America, the Beacon on the Hill, that might very well be right. But if it is, we should probably be consistent. Everybody knows we're not going to use nukes on Iran. Why? Because it's morally unconscionable. That, and it being proper to use them, probably can't both be correct. The public attitude is that atom bombs are a uniquely hideous weapon. If that's wrong, then hey, we can solve a whole bunch of world problems all of a sudden. If it's not wrong, well, that tells us something about our leader's actions 63 years ago, before many of us were conceived. I just think we should make up our mind one way or the other, instead of trying to have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

to a lesser extent, getting to appreciate all the money we'd spent on the Manhattan Project.

Ha I agree, no sense in letting Oppenheimer's work go to waste .

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

The Bomb was mostly about intimidating the Ruskies for the post war era we were going into.

Wasn't Russia prepared for a dual ground invasion of Japan with the US after the European theatre of WWII was over with, but we decided to go ahead and drop the bombs anyway?

1. Not an acceptable solution at the time.. It simply was not an option.. Just as leaving Hitler in power would not have been an option..

2. If a diplomatic solution were possible it would have happened long before we got as for as we did.. It was obvious to everyone that once the war in Europe was over that Japan could not, and would not, win.. If, and that is a huge if, they had stepped forward and offered a surrender within days of the end of the war in Europe I would wager that it would have been accepted.. By continuing to fight as forcefully and fanatically as they did over the next four months, again, it became a non option..

3. Again, you fail to take in to account the mindset of the enemy at that time.. Any pause, any hesitation, was viewed as a victory by the Japanese of the time.. Much as what is happening in Iraq is viewed as a victory by people now.. (on either side)

4. Atomic weapons in a modern age are simply unacceptable solutions.. Our military, and much of the modern world, has moved more and more toward a focused and targeted weapons system.. Indiscriminate weapons such as nukes, biological agents, (ie mass destruction) are simply not allowed by most modern societies..

While your #4 is wildly off topic, I think that the war in Iraq should have been handled differently.. But I wasn't asked my opinion..

But you seem to want to take a 60 year old event and subject it to modern attitudes and knowledge of the long term effects while completely discounting the facts and attitudes of the time in which they happened..

I don't have time to address most of what you wrote, as I'm going home and it's Friday. But I should thank you for actually speaking to my concerns. Before I put the computer to sleep and head out the door, tho, I thought it was important to answer one of your reservations in particular.

Originally Posted by Feydakin

But you seem to want to take a 60 year old event and subject it to modern attitudes and knowledge of the long term effects while completely discounting the facts and attitudes of the time in which they happened..

I think this is appropriate. Subjecting a historical event to modern standards doesn't change the past. There's no danger, no risk in introspection. There's a reason things happened the way they did in the past, and there's a reason modern attitudes and knowledge are what they are. When these two things conflict with each other, I think there's some value in asking why.

And with that, I bid you a good weekend.

I think it's one thing to study an action and another to place judgment on it..

And my weekend is about to start as well.. In three hours I get another year older and hopefully some much needed birthday sex..

Happy birthday, Steve / Feydakin. Good luck with your present(s)!

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

If you'd like to convince me otherwise, you need to address the facts, not appeal to rhetoric .... All the straw men, emotional appeals, and the like, take a back seat to cold, hard facts, and I'm sorry if that bothers you.

It amazes me that anyone will entertain your discussion when you present something that is untrue as fact, and ask people to debate you on the merits of the "facts". I know you are trying to ignore my request for some kind of factual backing of your premise because it doesn't exist but I'll spell it out for you one more time and cross my fingers.

Present one(1) link that shows the Japanese had only one condition to their surrender prior to the dropping of the first bomb.

The sack it takes to accuse others of straw man arguments and rhetoric when your premise is based on a lie astounds me. You should go into politics.

As an aside, your argument sounds a lot like the "Reagan didn't win the cold war" argument, citing that the soviet union would have collapsed under its own weight in the same period of time without the arms race. Talk about woulda, shoulda, coulda. The facts remain, Reagan did end the cold war, and the U.S. did end our war quickly with Japan.

Do you think it should be used in the war now?

Nope.. Traditional / tactical weapons like nukes require traditional / tactical targets.. Not so useful in a hit and run guerrilla warfare situation..