Hiroshima: the Crime that keeps on paying

Japan had all of that information within 24 hours. That left them two whole days to notify us of their surrender.

I didn't miss it. That meant that we needed to keep attacking.

One hour should be enough time to think it over.

 

Please confirm that you agree that Strategic Bombing Survey was not “highly flawed”. They have done a humongous amount of work analyzing Areal bombardment effectiveness on European and Japanese theaters.

Do I actually have to ask for proof every time when you make a Napoleon stile statement?
Proof?

As I said, I acknowledge Japanese efforts in acquiring USSR mediation. These efforts are laughable as they consist of nothing other than internal bla bla bla. Japan newer committed any resource to make this discussion even theoretically interesting to USSR.
Proof that Japs would not shift gears?

Proof?

I see a statements that Leahy “might have experienced moral revulsion”, and “this argument arose while fighting for budget blanket”
I have proof that he “experienced moral revulsion”
I do not see proof “this argument arose while fighting for budget blanket”
I do not see proof “that Leahy was not stating the obvious but pulling the budget blanket”

You have stated

Please clarify, you are coming to your senses or you claim that only your point of view can be reached with post war conclusions?

Correct. This system exists, it is famous for its weirdness, everyone knows about it (apparently except some individuals).

Why?

In reality you are incorrect. The morality that is considered reasonable by majority within certain boundaries, does not require any reasonable reasons to be considered reasonable.
Technically you are correct. There is no reasonable system of morality we know of, so a morality without a reason can be and should be considered unreasonable (that is if we look into human morality).
If we go deeper, we are both incorrect. We do not know what exactly morality is, so any statement regarding morality reasonability is not valid by default.
But from a scientific point of view, previous statement might be incorrect as our, or one of our conclusions, might be true by pure coincidence or by definition, that is if you believe in deterministic world model.

You OK there?

 

Wrong … the attack was reported after a few hours, but then slowly and piece for piece the real truth arrived in Tokyo. You miss that communication with complete region was terminated too.

In your rating to give Japan 3 days … but not in my rating!

Ehm … Let us say a Syrian Mig sunks an American Perry class ship in Mediteranian Sea with full intention because declaring that Syrian territory goes 500 miles from shore line suddenly etc. … the US answer comes within 1 or 2 hours? Sure man … in some dreams maybe!

You are in your thinking maybe too much fixed in the Doomsday thinking and practice…. Means someone attacks the USA with Nuclear weapons and eliminates a complete city etc., then the reaction will be max. 1 hour if attacker is clear. But this is not comparable with 1945 in Japan!

 

You have a GUESS about the generals thought about the bomb before Hiroshima. We do not have to guess what they said about it after the war when they could speak freely. They were against using it and felt the war was over

 

Aside from the single line about the impact of the Russian entry into the war, I agree that the Strategic Bombing Survey was not highly flawed.

I would instead characterize it as a bit of an exaggeration for propaganda purposes.

I just cited two reputable history books that talk about the post-war claims being in the context of a budget battle.

That's not Japan's fault. The Soviets would not even let Japan present their offer for consideration.

The proof is Japan's devotion to that sole course of action, to the expense of all other courses of action, due to the fact that this one course of action (if it had come to fruition) would have given Japan a much more positive outcome than any of the others.

I just cited two reputable history books that talk about the post-war claims being in the context of a budget battle.

If two reputable history books talking about it do not constitute proof, what does?

I have had full sensibility from the start.

I am not making the claim that you wrote there.

But.... given all of the facts that support my point of view, it may indeed be the only logical perspective.

I don't believe that. What system would require someone to act on knowledge that can be acquired only in the future?

Because a system that has unreasonable requirements is by definition unreasonable.

I think most accepted systems of morality are reasonable.

I would define morality as "striving to do the right thing".

My conclusions are likely to be correct.

- - - Updated - - -

Japan had a reliable report on the morning of August 7 that we had instantly destroyed the entire city with a single bomb.

By that time they also had Truman's claim that we had used an A-bomb.

As Japan had their own A-bomb program, they already knew what an A-bomb was.

That gave them two whole days to tell us that they surrendered.

When Japan decided to make a conditional surrender on August 9, they were able to communicate that to us by the morning of August 10.

If Japan had made that same decision two days earlier on August 7, they could have communicated that to us by the morning of August 8.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is something about General Spaatz, General LeMay, General Twining, and Admiral Nimitz all reacting to Nagasaki by pushing to make Tokyo the next target:

https://books.google.com/books?id=p...e&q=spaatz twining lemay nimitz tokyo&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=N...e&q=spaatz twining lemay nimitz tokyo&f=false

We do however need to keep in mind that none of that was being said during the war.

Hindsight is easy.

 

I see no direct quotes from those military leaders (except Marshall) that they wanted the bomb to be used on tokyo. That is the opinion of the author.
This statement you made is factually incorrect

We do however need to keep in mind that none of that was being said during the war.

We have no idea what was said during the war.

 

Yes, the same generals that said Germany was going to surrender due to conventional bombing. It never happened. Millions of people died because this belief.

10s of millions would have died if we had not dropped the atom bombs.

 

General LeMay was a homocidal maniac in terms of bombing during the war, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians and specifically advocated targeting civilians, not military sites.

Twice, he advocated for a surprise first strike full scale nuclear attack against Russia - during the Cuban Missile Crisis and during the Berlin Blockage. He was finally booted out as a lunatic.

With a reputation as a mass murdering, war mongering maniac he LATER starts saying "but I opposed dropping the atom bomb" trying to do a total reversal of his entire military history and stance on use of atom weapons.

Also cites as proof is MacArthur, the same MacArthur who wanted to go to war against China using nuclear weapons against China.

 

No they would not. All that would have happened is that we would wait a few weeks

- - - Updated - - -

They.....and virtually every other US military leader of the time.

 

The bombs that won a world war.

 

And they were unecessary

 

But they won the war

 

Then they should be used in every war. They would win every conflict....right?

 

Let's turn the middle east to glass and start over.

 

Crosshairs on the pre school

 

So, you think Truman should have been executed for war crimes?

 

It would likely detonate by a power facility so you'd be incorrect. However, we can't predict everything.

 

Executed by who?

 

An international war crimes tribunal. Do think Truman should have been charged and tried for war crimes? Yes - or no?

 

Yes he should have.

 

They weren't making public quotes to reporters. They were submitting an official request to their superiors in the US government.

No, those historians were stating facts.

All of my facts are in order. Admiral Nimitz, General LeMay, General Spaatz, and General Twining reacted to Nagasaki by asking to have the next A-bomb dropped on Tokyo to see if that would better grab the Emperor's attention.

Actually the records are pretty clear about what people said at what time, even during the war.

But even if it were actually true that we didn't know what was said during the war, it would still be just as wrong to pretend that there was some sort of fictitious opposition to the use of the bombs.

 

You can not show any evidence for your claims. Show me....in the own words of the people speaking in either written or verbal form. You can not do it. It is as simple as that

 

Please provide your references, proof, whatever. In what aspect it was an exaggeration. And I am not interested in your opinion, please provide facts.

If these “reputable” history books are indeed reputable, than they should have a list of facts that support or prove authors opinion which you cite.
Please provide facts that prove cited opinions.

Well, that’s not what Sato-Togo discussion tells us. Have you read the discussion?

Positive outcome dealing with Stalin, after KhalhinGol. This is a cute one . And what proves this point?

All systems that require to act now, though the knowledge of the outcome will be available only in the future. Quite common in the surrounding world…

Don’t drink and drive law.
You are not allowed to drive drunk because you might kill someone.
You are drunk, and driving, have not killed no one. At this state you are innocent of harm.
But you are stopped by the police and taken to custody.
The reason for police actions – law, that does not allow to drink and drive.
Reason for the law – crime prohibition, prohibition of event that might happen although it has not happened, and knowledge if it will happen is not available till the moment it will happen.

Why?

You do? Lets check, what morality systems you know that are reasonable? Give me three

And why oh why would you do that? You, you rapist of logical thinking, defiler of common sense, why do you think that when you Langolier guys will triumph, when the world will succumb to entropy and loose all its cherished heat of the second law of thermodynamics, why do you think that somehow you personally will not perish under the rubble of the fallen world?
Why morality would be “striving for something”? If my personal morality forbids “striving”? If I am a hippy I have to strive not to strive? And what is the “Right thing”? Where on earth or heaven there is a great big arrow pointing into the direction where the “right thing” is located?