OK, was it wrong to bomb Japan?

Dude an author is not peer reviewed ....a research paper is. So was this article peer reviewed....no. And really...the big font....really? Makes you look desperate. Lol

- - - Updated - - -

Here's a clue ....when presenting facts try not to use a range of 50 thousand to 400 thousand. It makes people just laugh. Lol

 

Britannica is reviewed by academics and is an award winning globally recognized reference publication. If you believe it to be less than sterling as a source then please prove it otherwise it is solid.

I note you avoided answering the question as you often do when presented with something that destroys you fantasy contentions. Need I post it in large font again?

 

OK, thanks for the tip but, I have always said fifty thousand so, dropping the bombs saved lives right off the bat.

Oh, here's a tip, when posting fibs don't get the guys you're replying to confused.

 

I just looked and although MacArther was not consulted, when asked about it, he said it was unnecessary. With regards to Truman, the decision to use the bomb and how to use it, ultimately were in his hands. The target committee had no legal power to actually order that the bomb be dropped on a particular target. That power ultimately rested with the president. Any rate, the point is that the use of the bomb was unnecessary, and as such it was barbaric to kill so many innocent people in that way. To be honest, the subject matter is so horrible that I really don't feel like thinking about it further right now, so knock yourself out. I'm done.

 

I would not put all that much faith in what Ike said since Douglas MacArthur was the General of the Army in the Pacific. And as a poster pointed out, he would have used the bomb on China during the Korea war.

Everybody has opinions.

As you point out, CIC Truman called it. And while he no doubt consulted his men, in DC, and perhaps the commanders, the end is clear. We bombed Hiroshima and as you point out, this bomb gave a good chance to test if a warning would work. And it did not work.

 

Japan was not going to surrender without being bombed. This is fact. Otherwise it would not have taken twice to make them surrender.

 

So a collection of out of context quotes is better than an in context Harvard History professor that teaches a class on World War 2 speaking on the subject ? .....really ?

All you have is a book written by someone trying to push his own narrative, and in order to do so, he searched through decades of archives where he could find various lines ( taken out of context) somewhere that he could then present in order to give the false impression that the whole of the military establishment opposed ending the war with a nuclear bomb. It is a conspiracy book, much like a conspiracy book on the moon landing. The fact of the matter is, people that write that type of book are usually able to be superficially plausible, which is about the extent of your book. He took a few people that truly opposed it, and then sprinkled in out of context quotes relating to the legal concept of "militarily necessary" which does not mean what you think it means, in order to give the false impression that EVERYBODY opposed this.

The CNN story tells an entirely different narrative. For that matter, virtually every historical source tells a different narrative, but to you, because you were able to find a conspiracy book, you are prattling on for 70 pages in a thread convinced that you are correct. You are spouting a belief that is EXTREMELY far out of the mainstream.

 

Nukes were used more for political effect than for a military attack:

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the...n-a-Japanese-military-base-rather-than-a-city

 

So, if you were a simple Jap worker with little education living in Nagasaki reading a leaflet, would you automatically understand and then believe the destructive force of a nuke back in 1945, there having never been one witnessed beforehand by the public? And then believe they were going to use it above your head in your city?

Did everyone believe the propaganda of the enemy back in WW 2?

 

Even Pat Buchanan has denounced the nuking of Japan. In writing. He is hardly a kook or an America-hater.

 

1) The conventional bombing of many major Japanese cities prior to the nukes probably killed more civilians than the nukes did.

2) My own preference would have been for them to at least drop the nukes offshore but within sight of people on the mainland as a "heads up."

3) If you were a civilian peasant with no sense of or care for geo-politics, or maybe if you were even against Japan's military aggressions, and if you had a child killed or disfigured in the blasts, you'd likely feel differently about the whole subject.

 

They were already being bombed.

 

Then you will be happy to present the references for your quote from the article. Where are they? And Britannica is not a reference source. That is like saying, "Just trust me". LOL

 

The CNN story is a NARRATIVE. I posted facts.

 

Nothing like we did

- - - Updated - - -

No you did not lololol

 

You posted out of context quotes from a conspiracy book. The CNN story used a Harvard Professor that teaches a class on WW2 to tell the story. It just so happens that the Harvard professor story happens to mimic the position that we have always heard AND follows logic. The war weary public and military establishment wanted desperately to end the war, and they accomplished that objective. Nobody was shedding a tear for 150k Japanese when the alternative was a far greater loss of life both for the Japanese and the Americans. It was a no brainer.

 

Are you appealing to authority? Post a quote from a general that was in favor of the bomb. My contention all along has been that the greatest military minds of the day were against using the bomb and that they were right. I hear a lot of claims being made but no verifiable evidence.

 

He doesn't care about what's true or not. He has a position that goes against what's generally accepted and will cling to it. It's very common these days. Gives them a sense of meaning.

He quote mines, and pretends he has evidence lol. He doesn't know the difference.

Reason and basic logic show that more life would have been lost otherwise.

 

I care about the evidence. Present some evidence. What I am saying is a widely held belief. And it is backed by evidence .....not just empty claims

 

I doubt ANYONE was "In Favor" of using this weapon, and in fact many Generals, Admirals....etc....were against after it was used, and not convinced of the necessity beforehand. Japan was mostly beaten but did not surrender until AFTER the second one was used. Likely they knew something bad was coming yet they did not give up....so the first one was used. Still they held on for some reason and were warned a second was coming and they should surrender to which they did not reply. After the second they decided to bite the bullet as long as the Empire was maintained.

 

It actually isn't backed by any shred of evidence. Just quote mining. That's not evidence. So you have formed this strong opinion on literally nothing at all. You don't even know the facts. Despite how they liter this thread. Lolol.

Meanwhile, the facts suggest overwhelmingly that to not drop the bomb would have resulted in more loss of life, from both sides. Therefore justifying it.

Lolol

 

One would not be enough?

 

Quote mining? I posted the actual words used by the very top military leaders. You don't get anything more factual than that. And not one leader. Not two. ALL the greatest military minds. And they are all in agreement. You have NO evidence. I have TONS

 

One would get easily shot down just like single Zeros were. Zero Kamikaze attacks only succeeded because they swarmed Allied defenses.

And with a 1940's era atomic bomb, especially if it's one smaller than Fat Man or Little Boy, you are going to have to get damn close to the fleet to destroy anything significant.

Look up the Bikini Island tests in 1946. They had numerous warships survive a nuclear air burst less than 2 miles from ground zero.

 

They were given three day between bombs. Three days. If we had a third bomb should we have used it in another three days if they did not surrender? If we had ten bombs should we have used them all eventually?