Experts-- Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki Was Unnecessary

[daleko]

Aug 12, 2020 21:40:48 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Getting back on track, the bombs WERE necessary.

They saved the lives of countless Allied and Japanese soldiers, AND Japanese civilians.

An invasion of Japan would have caused every Japanese civilian who could, to take up arms against us.

Traitor Willie's "experts" are idiots.

Other than Ike, the other two weren't "experts" in crafting or advancing State Foreign Policy. Leading a War Machine, yes. Ike had the Military capability and later came to understand Statecraft, which he honed cobbling the various partners in Europe but until you get to POTUS, where every State Foreign Policy decision you get to own, it's all just training. Neither Gar Alperovitz or Martin Sherwin took into consideration or ignored that the decision to end the war w an unconditional surrender was a State Foreign Policy decision not a military one. Advancing that unconditional surrender using the bomb was also a State Foreign Policy decision. The mil gave their opinions and data. Truman made the decision. Probably saved the world from a nuke WW III.

[DrSchadenfreude]

Aug 14, 2020 14:40:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Aug 14, 2020 13:09:15 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Way to reiterate the bogus mythology, fellas.

Did you even read Apelovitz's analysis?

If dropping the atomic bombs on civilians was necessary, why did guys like Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Nimitz say it was unnecessary?

Do you and Sh-ard-shit think you know more about military strategy than Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Nimitz?

Who said it was only about military strategy? Three stages of Intl handling of affairs, in a time of extreme disagreement. State discussion/negotiation is #1 (FDR tried that), Conflict generally #2 (FDR moved to that). Covert under articles assigned to the POTUS as an option, is #3, primarily when conflict is not acceptable. Yes, Ike used that EO. What did he call it? Yes, Health alteration. Perhaps you think Truman should have used #3 as a tool to gain unconditional surrender, a State objective not military but State obj. Perhaps Ike was right, they should have used a Health Alteration action. JFK called it Executive Action, Reagan Preemptive Neutralization, G W Bush Lethal Direct Action and Obama, who was less oblique, Targeted Killing. But in all three actions, the objective is the same, advancing US foreign policy.Truman used #2. Disagree? In America you get to.

Read the Apelovitz analysis, you idiot.

The Japanese were ready to surrender in August of 1945, and had made overtures to do so.  The sticking point was their unconditional devotion to their Emperor-- unto death.  But that devotion unto death was never altered, even after the nuclear genocide-- it was intact after the MacArthur armistice.  Do you follow?

So what did the nukes accomplish-- other than the mass murder of civilians?  As Eisenhower said, they were unnecessary.

The decisive factor for the Japanese High Command in their surrender was the overwhelmingly successful Red Army invasion of Manchuko, and the threat of a Soviet occupation of Hokkaido.  It's not even clear that they fully understood what had happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time.

And recall that Tokyo had already been completely fire-bombed--devastated-- without resulting in a Japanese surrender.

So, nuking the civilian populations of two other major cities was unnecessary.  It was gratuitous genocide, and a major U.S. war crime.

[daleko]

Aug 15, 2020 12:33:57 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Aug 14, 2020 14:40:53 GMT -5 daleko said:

Who said it was only about military strategy? Three stages of Intl handling of affairs, in a time of extreme disagreement. State discussion/negotiation is #1 (FDR tried that), Conflict generally #2 (FDR moved to that). Covert under articles assigned to the POTUS as an option, is #3, primarily when conflict is not acceptable. Yes, Ike used that EO. What did he call it? Yes, Health alteration. Perhaps you think Truman should have used #3 as a tool to gain unconditional surrender, a State objective not military but State obj. Perhaps Ike was right, they should have used a Health Alteration action. JFK called it Executive Action, Reagan Preemptive Neutralization, G W Bush Lethal Direct Action and Obama, who was less oblique, Targeted Killing. But in all three actions, the objective is the same, advancing US foreign policy.Truman used #2. Disagree? In America you get to.

Read the Apelovitz analysis, you idiot.

The Japanese were ready to surrender in August of 1945, and had made overtures to do so.  The sticking point was their unconditional devotion to their Emperor-- unto death.  But that devotion unto death was never altered, even after the nuclear genocide-- it was intact after the MacArthur armistice. But unconditional surrender did occur. Do YOU follow?

So what did the nukes accomplish-- other than the mass murder of civilians? Unconditional surrender.  As Eisenhower said, they were unnecessary. Never disagreed that from a military perspective (IKE, et all) that it was required to eventually win the war. Eventually. Or w/o unconditional surrender sooner. 

The decisive factor for the Japanese High Command in their surrender was the overwhelmingly successful Red Army invasion of Manchuko, and the threat of a Soviet occupation of Hokkaido.  It's not even clear that they fully understood what had happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time. Even then no unconditional surrender.

And recall that Tokyo had already been completely fire-bombed--devastated-- without resulting in a Japanese surrender. Not so though w the Nuke. Thanks for confirming.

So, nuking the civilian populations of two other major cities was unnecessary.  It was gratuitous genocide, and a major U.S. war crime.

I've studied the contention as long as you've been a shrink. In fact, longer. Part of my life once. Still don't get it do you. Don't conflate military w advancing foreign policy. State. The examples used to confirm are BS, absent Ike, who even then hadn't yet honed his Foreign Policy craft. But he learned quick.

Unconditional surrender only, was a State decision. The bomb met those goals, quickly, after the second one. They work under the State, option2. However, as I said, perhaps Ike was implying that option 3 be used, an option he often used as POTUS and was in the tool bag, in a rudimentary way, in 1945. Not the productive State Foreign Policy tool in use today but available ntl. Perhaps you are saying the Emperor should have had a Health Alteration Event, which would have been difficult to do? <shrug> f-word w the Bull, you get the Horn.

[Deleted]

Aug 15, 2020 13:04:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

Aug 15, 2020 12:33:57 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Read the Apelovitz analysis, you idiot.

The Japanese were ready to surrender in August of 1945, and had made overtures to do so.  The sticking point was their unconditional devotion to their Emperor-- unto death.  But that devotion unto death was never altered, even after the nuclear genocide-- it was intact after the MacArthur armistice. But unconditional surrender did occur. Do YOU follow?

So what did the nukes accomplish-- other than the mass murder of civilians? Unconditional surrender.  As Eisenhower said, they were unnecessary. Never disagreed that from a military perspective (IKE, et all) that it was required to eventually win the war. Eventually. Or w/o unconditional surrender sooner. 

The decisive factor for the Japanese High Command in their surrender was the overwhelmingly successful Red Army invasion of Manchuko, and the threat of a Soviet occupation of Hokkaido.  It's not even clear that they fully understood what had happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the time. Even then no unconditional surrender.

And recall that Tokyo had already been completely fire-bombed--devastated-- without resulting in a Japanese surrender. Not so though w the Nuke. Thanks for confirming.

So, nuking the civilian populations of two other major cities was unnecessary.  It was gratuitous genocide, and a major U.S. war crime.

I've studied the contention as long as you've been a shrink. In fact, longer. Part of my life once. Still don't get it do you. Don't conflate military w advancing foreign policy. State. The examples used to confirm are BS, absent Ike, who even then hadn't yet honed his Foreign Policy craft. But he learned quick.

Unconditional surrender only, was a State decision. The bomb met those goals, quickly, after the second one. They work under the State, option2. However, as I said, perhaps Ike was implying that option 3 be used, an option he often used as POTUS and was in the tool bag, in a rudimentary way, in 1945. Not the productive State Foreign Policy tool in use today but available ntl. Perhaps you are saying the Emperor should have had a Health Alteration Event, which would have been difficult to do? <shrug> f-word w the Bull, you get the Horn.

Did that idiot REALLY infer that the U.S. committed a war crime with a nuclear bomb?   What part of the Geneva Convention forbids the use of a nuclear bomb?

You want war crimes?    Let's look at the Bataan Death March, the beheading and execution by other means of Allied POW's, Dachau and the Nazi extermination camps in Poland, and many more TRUE war crimes.

I guess Traitor Willie wanted his daddy's luck to run out and get killed in an invasion of Japan.   He certainly doesn't care that thousands more GI's would have been killed.
American Lives Don't Matter to PsychoTheRapist.

[daleko]

Aug 15, 2020 19:13:04 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Aug 15, 2020 13:04:59 GMT -5 daleko said:

I've studied the contention as long as you've been a shrink. In fact, longer. Part of my life once. Still don't get it do you. Don't conflate military w advancing foreign policy. State. The examples used to confirm are BS, absent Ike, who even then hadn't yet honed his Foreign Policy craft. But he learned quick.

Unconditional surrender only, was a State decision. The bomb met those goals, quickly, after the second one. They work under the State, option2. However, as I said, perhaps Ike was implying that option 3 be used, an option he often used as POTUS and was in the tool bag, in a rudimentary way, in 1945. Not the productive State Foreign Policy tool in use today but available ntl. Perhaps you are saying the Emperor should have had a Health Alteration Event, which would have been difficult to do? <shrug> f-word w the Bull, you get the Horn.

Did that idiot REALLY infer that the U.S. committed a war crime with a nuclear bomb?   What part of the Geneva Convention forbids the use of a nuclear bomb?

You want war crimes?    Let's look at the Bataan Death March, the beheading and execution by other means of Allied POW's, Dachau and the Nazi extermination camps in Poland, and many more TRUE war crimes.

I guess Traitor Willie wanted his daddy's luck to run out and get killed in an invasion of Japan.   He certainly doesn't care that thousands more GI's would have been killed.
American Lives Don't Matter to PsychoTheRapist.

He’s hopeless. Right now he’ surfing the web to pivot the discussion to why unconditional finding an author who’ll view from today v then. He’ not capable of original thought.

[Buckeye Dale]

Aug 16, 2020 13:31:40 GMT -5 daleko said:

Aug 15, 2020 19:13:04 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Did that idiot REALLY infer that the U.S. committed a war crime with a nuclear bomb?   What part of the Geneva Convention forbids the use of a nuclear bomb?

You want war crimes?    Let's look at the Bataan Death March, the beheading and execution by other means of Allied POW's, Dachau and the Nazi extermination camps in Poland, and many more TRUE war crimes.

I guess Traitor Willie wanted his daddy's luck to run out and get killed in an invasion of Japan.   He certainly doesn't care that thousands more GI's would have been killed.
American Lives Don't Matter to PsychoTheRapist.

He’s hopeless. Right now he’ surfing the web to pivot the discussion to why unconditional finding an author who’ll view from today v then. He’ not capable of original thought.

If he'd only known that one of those mental diseases was infectious... must have originated in China.

[DrSchadenfreude]

   Let me preface these next two reference posts by noting that you three blockheads-- Mutt, Daleko, and Sh-ard-shite -- are, in my opinion, virtually incapable of learning anything.  Nor do the three of you generally read scholarly books or study scholarly on-line sources-- as opposed to bogus sites like McAdams.edu, etc. So, I don't expect you to grasp the subject under discussion.

    BUT, since you persist in simply repeating the same old, Truman-esque mythology about the necessity of nuking the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I will persist -- one more time-- in posting, 1) the expert opinions to the contrary, and 2) the opinions regarding the criminality of nuking civilian populations.

Pay special attention to what Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein pointed out.  I think we can all agree that they were more intelligent than any of us.

Would you three blockheads have considered it a war crime if the Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on Baton Rouge, Cleveland, and St. Louis in August of 1945?

EXPERT OPINIONS THAT THE NUKES WERE UNNECESSARY

Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.[96]

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur,[97][98] Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz (Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet), Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr. (Commander of the US Third Fleet), and even the man in charge of all strategic air operations against the Japanese home islands, then-Major General Curtis LeMay:

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.
— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [89]

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.
— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [99]

The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.
— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [100]

The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.
— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [100]

Stephen Peter Rosen of Harvard believes that a submarine blockade would have been sufficient to force Japan to surrender.[101]

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa wrote the atomic bombings themselves were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation.[102] Instead, he contends, it was the Soviet entry in the war on 8 August, allowed by the Potsdam Declaration signed by the other Allies. The fact the Soviet Union did not sign this declaration gave Japan reason to believe the Soviets could be kept out of the war.[103] As late as 25 July, the day before the declaration was issued, Japan had asked for a diplomatic envoy led by Konoe to come to Moscow hoping to mediate peace in the Pacific.[104] Konoe was supposed to bring a letter from the Emperor stating:

His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice of the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But as long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender the Japanese Empire has no alternative to fight on with all its strength for the honour and existence of the Motherland ... It is the Emperor's private intention to send Prince Konoe to Moscow as a Special Envoy ...[105]

Hasegawa's view is, when the Soviet Union declared war on 8 August,[106] it crushed all hope in Japan's leading circles that the Soviets could be kept out of the war and also that reinforcements from Asia to the Japanese islands would be possible for the expected invasion.[107] Hasegawa wrote:

On the basis of available evidence, however, it is clear that the two atomic bombs ... alone were not decisive in inducing Japan to surrender. Despite their destructive power, the atomic bombs were not sufficient to change the direction of Japanese diplomacy. The Soviet invasion was. Without the Soviet entry in the war, the Japanese would have continued to fight until numerous atomic bombs, a successful allied invasion of the home islands, or continued aerial bombardments, combined with a naval blockade, rendered them incapable of doing so.[102]

Ward Wilson wrote that "after Nagasaki was bombed only four major cities remained which could readily have been hit with atomic weapons", and that the Japanese Supreme Council did not bother to convene after the atomic bombings because they were barely more destructive than previous bombings. He wrote that instead, the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and South Sakhalin removed Japan's last diplomatic and military options for negotiating a conditional surrender, and this is what prompted Japan's surrender. He wrote that attributing Japan's surrender to a "miracle weapon", instead of the start of the Soviet invasion, saved face for Japan and enhanced the United States' world standing.[108]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[DrSchadenfreude]

EXPERT OPINIONS THAT NUKING CIVILIAN POPULATIONS WAS A WAR CRIME

A number of notable individuals and organizations have criticized the bombings, many of them characterizing them as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and/or state terrorism. Early critics of the bombings were Albert Einstein, Eugene Wigner and Leó Szilárd, who had together spurred the first bomb research in 1939 with a jointly written letter to President Roosevelt.

Szilárd, who had gone on to play a major role in the Manhattan Project, argued:

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?[110]

The cenotaph at the Hiroshima Peace Park is inscribed with the sentence: "Let all the souls here rest in peace; this mistake shall not be repeated." Although the sentence may seem ambiguous, it has been clarified that its intended agent is all of humanity, and the mistake referred to is war in general.[111]

A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use. Led by Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:

If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.[112]

Mark Selden writes, "Perhaps the most trenchant contemporary critique of the American moral position on the bomb and the scales of justice in the war was voiced by the Indian jurist Radhabinod Pal, a dissenting voice at the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, who balked at accepting the uniqueness of Japanese war crimes. Recalling Kaiser Wilhelm II's account of his duty to bring World War I to a swift end—"everything must be put to fire and sword; men, women and children and old men must be slaughtered and not a tree or house be left standing." Pal observed:

This policy of indiscriminate murder to shorten the war was considered to be a crime. In the Pacific war under our consideration, if there was anything approaching what is indicated in the above letter of the German Emperor, it is the decision coming from the Allied powers to use the bomb. Future generations will judge this dire decision ... If any indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and property is still illegal in warfare, then, in the Pacific War, this decision to use the atom bomb is the only near approach to the directives of the German Emperor during the first World War and of the Nazi leaders during the second World War.

Selden mentions another critique of the nuclear bombing, which he says the U.S. government effectively suppressed for twenty-five years, as worth mention. On 11 August 1945, the Japanese government filed an official protest over the atomic bombing to the U.S. State Department through the Swiss Legation in Tokyo, observing:

Combatant and noncombatant men and women, old and young, are massacred without discrimination by the atmospheric pressure of the explosion, as well as by the radiating heat which result therefrom. Consequently there is involved a bomb having the most cruel effects humanity has ever known ... The bombs in question, used by the Americans, by their cruelty and by their terrorizing effects, surpass by far gas or any other arm, the use of which is prohibited. Japanese protests against U.S. desecration of international principles of war paired the use of the atomic bomb with the earlier firebombing, which massacred old people, women and children, destroying and burning down Shinto and Buddhist temples, schools, hospitals, living quarters, etc ... They now use this new bomb, having an uncontrollable and cruel effect much greater than any other arms or projectiles ever used to date. This constitutes a new crime against humanity and civilization.[113]

Selden concludes, despite the war crimes committed by the Empire of Japan, nevertheless, "the Japanese protest correctly pointed to U.S. violations of internationally accepted principles of war with respect to the wholesale destruction of populations".[113]

In 1963, the bombings were the subject of a judicial review in Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State.[114] On the 22nd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor, the District Court of Tokyo declined to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons in general, but found, "the attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused such severe and indiscriminate suffering that they did violate the most basic legal principles governing the conduct of war."[115]

In the opinion of the court, the act of dropping an atomic bomb on cities was at the time governed by international law found in the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 and the Hague Draft Rules of Air Warfare of 1922–1923[116] and was therefore illegal.[117]

In the documentary The Fog of War, former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recalls General Curtis LeMay, who relayed the Presidential order to drop nuclear bombs on Japan,[118] said:

"If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?[119]

As the first combat use of nuclear weapons, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent to some the crossing of a crucial barrier. Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, wrote of President Truman: "He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species."[120] Kuznick said the atomic bombing of Japan "was not just a war crime; it was a crime against humanity."[120]

Takashi Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima, upholding nuclear disarmament, said in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ): "It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves [effects on] survivors for decades, is a violation of international law".[121][122] Iccho Itoh, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared in the same hearing:

It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come ... with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities ... The use of nuclear weapons ... therefore is a manifest infraction of international law.[121]

Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider the definition too strict, and argue the bombings do constitute genocide.[123][124] For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement, "[T]he Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst".[125]

The scholar R. J. Rummel instead extends the definition of genocide to what he calls democide, and includes the major part of deaths from the atom bombings in these. His definition of democide includes not only genocide, but also an excessive killing of civilians in war, to the extent this is against the agreed rules for warfare; he argues the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, and thus democide.[126] Rummel quotes among others an official protest from the US government in 1938 to Japan, for its bombing of Chinese cities: "The bombing of non-combatant populations violated international and humanitarian laws." He also considers excess deaths of civilians in conflagrations caused by conventional means, such as in Tokyo, as acts of democide.

In 1967, Noam Chomsky described the atomic bombings as "among the most unspeakable crimes in history". Chomsky pointed to the complicity of the American people in the bombings, referring to the bitter experiences they had undergone prior to the event as the cause for their acceptance of its legitimacy.[127]

In 2007, a group of intellectuals in Hiroshima established an unofficial body called International Peoples' Tribunal on the Dropping of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On 16 July 2007, it delivered its verdict, stating:

The Tribunal finds that the nature of damage caused by the atomic bombs can be described as indiscriminate extermination of all life forms or inflicting unnecessary pain to the survivors.

About the legality and the morality of the action, the unofficial tribunal found:

The ... use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal in the light of the principles and rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflicts, since the bombing of both cities, made civilians the object of attack, using nuclear weapons that were incapable of distinguishing between civilians and military targets and consequently, caused unnecessary suffering to the civilian survivors.[128]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[daleko]

Aug 16, 2020 13:58:31 GMT -5 Buckeye Dale said:

Aug 16, 2020 13:31:40 GMT -5 daleko said:

He’s hopeless. Right now he’ surfing the web to pivot the discussion to why unconditional finding an author who’ll view from today v then. He’ not capable of original thought.

If he'd only known that one of those mental diseases was infectious... must have originated in China.

As I predicted Willie did what I thought. No surprise he pivoted. The military has no seat at the discussion table. Dropping the bomb to meet an unconditional surrender requirement was a political decision made at that time, in that time. Not to be judged any differently. Pivot away Willie. And start a new thread if you want to discuss A different level of discussion.

[Buckeye Dale]

Aug 16, 2020 22:13:18 GMT -5 daleko said:

Aug 16, 2020 13:58:31 GMT -5 Buckeye Dale said:

If he'd only known that one of those mental diseases was infectious... must have originated in China.

As I predicted Willie did what I thought. No surprise he pivoted. The military has no seat at the discussion table. Dropping the bomb to meet an unconditional surrender requirement was a political decision made at that time, in that time. Not to be judged any differently. Pivot away Willie. And start a new thread if you want to discuss A different level of discussion.

I thought you explained very well in the difference between military & state.  Of course, that doesn't fit into the little Blame America niche he tries to fit everything into.  Made me a bit curious about your background...I'd like to get together for a beer or two before we're all said & done...

[DrSchadenfreude]

Speaking of "pivoting," Cheese Burgher, answer my question...  

Geez.  Even Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay admitted that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime. 

If you want scholarly references, read Kuznick.  (I read his Untold History text cover-to-cover.)  Do you even know who he is?

Would you three blockheads have considered it a war crime if the Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on Baton Rouge, Cleveland, and St. Louis in August of 1945?

[daleko]

Aug 18, 2020 14:03:09 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Speaking of "pivoting," Cheese Burgher, answer my question...  

Geez.  Even Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay admitted that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime. 

If you want scholarly references, read Kuznick.  (I read his Untold History text cover-to-cover.)  Do you even know who he is?

Would you three blockheads have considered it a war crime if the Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on Baton Rouge, Cleveland, and St. Louis in August of 1945?

You do know the Japs were working on the Bomb, don't you? And they were trying to create an atomic weapon to ??  Ya I know to take a picture and send it to the Emperor. Jeez get a grip. They would have, if they could have and had we given them enough time, they would have.  They fucked w the Bull and got the horn. At that time, in that time, f-word Em. 

You know, maybe Ike was thinking ahead to when HE used option 3 and we should of just eliminated the Emperor. Health Alteration. Different ROE. 

[oujour76]

Aug 18, 2020 21:02:43 GMT -5 daleko said:

Aug 18, 2020 14:03:09 GMT -5 DrSchadenfreude said:

Speaking of "pivoting," Cheese Burgher, answer my question...  

Geez.  Even Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay admitted that nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime. 

If you want scholarly references, read Kuznick.  (I read his Untold History text cover-to-cover.)  Do you even know who he is?

Would you three blockheads have considered it a war crime if the Japanese had dropped atomic bombs on Baton Rouge, Cleveland, and St. Louis in August of 1945?

You do know the Japs were working on the Bomb, don't you? And they were trying to create an atomic weapon to ??  Ya I know to take a picture and send it to the Emperor. Jeez get a grip. They would have, if they could have and had we given them enough time, they would have.  They fucked w the Bull and got the horn. At that time, in that time, f-word Em. 

You know, maybe Ike was thinking ahead to when HE used option 3 and we should of just eliminated the Emperor. Health Alteration. Different ROE. 

He doesn’t know anything. ::shrug::

[Panama pfRedd]

He knows Bush Sr. was in on the Kennedy assassination and Jews were dancing on the grassy knoll. That much he knows with 100% certainty.

[Buckeye Dale]

Aug 19, 2020 9:51:51 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

He knows Bush Sr. was in on the Kennedy assassination and Jews were dancing on the grassy knoll. That much he knows with 100% certainty.

...but then, a lot of them ARE ignorant on top of that.