Between 9/11 and Hiroshima

Can you provide data that shows that there were other options than the ones I covered? I don't think you can. It appears that your really haven't studied the war in the Pacific. To present data you must show your references other than "I this what I heard or believe". I do not know where you obtained the assumption that the weapons were used to intimidate Russia. Please list your reference for this assumption.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-509294.html

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/poli...show-president-bush-ignored-numerous-warnings

 

except in court where they pretend the original doesnt exist.

 

there are always "other options" however the gubbermint does not operate that way.

There is an agenda behind everything they do which is ALWAYS calculated to promote certain outcomes. There are threshold understandings that one must have to even engage in a beneficial debate.

 

you talking about me?

 

If that is true then Sherman's March to the Sea was terrorism. The London Blitz was terrorism. The firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo was terrorism (more people died during the March 9-10 1945 raid on Tokyo than died in both atomic bomb attacks). Welcome to modern warfare where civilians are fair game.

What I find ironic is that Japan attacks a military target and we use every weapon in our disposal and not caring about civilian casualties, yet Al-Queda hits a purely civilian target and we, for the most part, have tried to avoid civilian casualties. Imagine if we used the WWII tactic of firebombing in Afghanistan? Kabul would be only a smoking cinder by now.

 

What the ***** has this got to do with the subject matter. This was not a generalization of government actions, but specific options that were taken to end the war with Japan. If you think that there were other options to end the war that were not listed please bring them forth. If you have specific comments on the subject matter then please feel free to comment.

 

Why do you find it ironic, do you not understand why it was necessary to do what the United States did to end the war with Japan. This war with terrorist is totally different than WWII. In WWII we and the allies were at war with nations, not a splinter group of a population. In WWII it was necessary to destroy the countries means of making war and their will to make war.

 

Actually it was Germany that started WW2-you didn't join in until two years later. Always happy to educate Americans.

And, in fact, there were other options to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but America was far to eager to impress Stalin with your new toys:http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

 

I really do not understand where you got the mistaken idea that I thought that it was Japan that started WWII. However, as you well know there were many Americans that thought that the war in Europe was a "European" war and that the US should not become directly involved in "Europe's" war. It was not until Japan attacked Pearl Harbor that finally brought the US into the conflict.

I have read the article that you referenced and I see no reference to your statement that dropping the two bombs were to impress Stalin. Hindsight is always excellent, we do not know for a fact that the war with Japan would have came to the same conclusion that it did without the use of atomic weapons. What happened, happened. The war was concluded and Japan is now a thriving country. Let me ask you a question, what do you think would have happened if Russia had gained a major foothold in Japan?

 

I have no idea what might have happened, and all is speculative. However, there was a clear alternative to the atom bombs. Stalin had been an ally of convenience and America was under no illusion about his expansionist ambitions, post WW2. After all, the western powers had already caved-in to his demands for half of Poland in return for his alliance and the establishment of a second front against Hitler, and his expansion into Eastern Europe is now history. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in view of the information in the document I linked to, can thus be seen as no more than an overt demonstration of US power, and a clear warning to Stalin.

 

That is pure assumption on your part. There is nothing in the article that directly points to the idea that it was a "demonstration of power". It is all conjecture on your part.

 

I really fail to see how anyone could argue that dropping an Atomic bomb on civilian cities with no purpose other than killing civilians isn't terrorism.

 

It was total WAR

 

Well this is debatable too. Technically, if you're referring to Germany's invasion of Poland, then it was France and the UK who started WW2 when they declared war on Germany after the invasion. Although treaties guaranteed war if Germany DID make its move on Poland, it was still France/UK who declared war on Germany before they did.

And to get even MORE technical, you could trace it to Japan.. Indeed, Germany was assisting the Chinese during the Second-Sino War, providing the Chinese with materials and intel in 1937, but concluded a year later with the Axis Pact with Japan so that Germany had an ally against the USSR.

Utter technicalities really lead to the upstart of the war. If you ask me, WW1 really never ended after Paris in 1919 - it only left issues complicated.

However, you're right that the US used a-bombs to 'impress' Stalin. No argument there.

 

Russian knew about the atomic bomb prior to the US using the weapon on Japan. Russia knew from the Manhattan project. This excerpt is from Atomic Spies the Soviet Union needed spies that first of all, had security clearance high enough to have access to classified information, and could secondly, understand and interpret what they were stealing. Moscow also needed reliable spies who believed in the communist cause and would provide accurate information. One such Soviet spy was Theodore Hall, who had been a developer on the bombs dropped in Japan.[9] Hall gave up the specifications of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. This information allowed the Soviet scientists a firsthand look at the successful set up of an atomic weapon built by the Allied team.

 

Then we're in agreement. A-bomb for the point to prove... I believe even Hitler noted the disdain the Allies and USSR had for each other BEFORE '43. Thus, the 'Race to the Rhine', or Berlin for that matter.

 

If the United States held such disdain for Russia, why was Eisenhower told to hold at the Elbe and allow Russia to basically take over all of Easter Europe?
See Halt at the Elbe

 

The short answer is that the post-war division of Germany had already been agreed upon. Had the allies fought on to Berlin they would have likely been forced to withdraw back to the Elbe anyway, unless they wanted to provoke further war against the Soviet Union. Eisenhower felt it would be a waste of allied lives. He figured they may as well let the Russian fights and die for that territory.

 

In the words of then Secretary of State James Byrnes, "our possessing and demonstrating the bomb [on Japan] would make Russia more manageable in Europe".
http://www.doug-long.com/byrnes.htm

 

Yes, technically you are correct; although the invasion of Poland was de facto an act of war. I agree that WW1 and 2 are essentially linked by a brief period of diplomatic stalemate.