Another Perspective
-
Okay… So why follow it up with Nagasaki?
-
To convince the Japanese we could bomb them as many times as needed?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Jolly said in Another Perspective:
To convince the Japanese we could bomb them as many times as needed?
But that's not actually true, is it? How many devices did we have in 1945?
-
@Jolly said in Another Perspective:
To convince the Japanese we could bomb them as many times as needed?
But that's not actually true, is it? How many devices did we have in 1945?
@George-K said in Another Perspective:
@Jolly said in Another Perspective:
To convince the Japanese we could bomb them as many times as needed?
But that's not actually true, is it? How many devices did we have in 1945?
One more. Tibbets was to have flown the core to the staging area and final assembly was to be on-site.
But projections called for as many as seven a month in 90-120 days, IIRC.
-
@Jolly said in Another Perspective:
To convince the Japanese we could bomb them as many times as needed?
That’s not my point. The writer states that if Hiroshima wasn’t the center of uranium enrichment of a nuclear program very close to fulfillment, then it was a civilian target and therefore a war crime. That’s bullshit. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army and was of incredible strategic significance. If you hold the author’s view then Nagasaki (another very important strategic point, and the port where tens of thousands of soldiers were deployed) was absolutely a war crime as it had no involvement in the very behind nuclear program.
Beyond that, why are these war crimes while the firebombings of Tokyo was not?
The Brad
-
The amount of war crimes in WWII on all sides fairly staggers one's mind. It's awfully difficult to take a righteous stand.
Still, that was a great article.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@Jolly said in Another Perspective:
To convince the Japanese we could bomb them as many times as needed?
That’s not my point. The writer states that if Hiroshima wasn’t the center of uranium enrichment of a nuclear program very close to fulfillment, then it was a civilian target and therefore a war crime. That’s bullshit. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army and was of incredible strategic significance. If you hold the author’s view then Nagasaki (another very important strategic point, and the port where tens of thousands of soldiers were deployed) was absolutely a war crime as it had no involvement in the very behind nuclear program.
Beyond that, why are these war crimes while the firebombings of Tokyo was not?
@LuFins-Dad said in Another Perspective:
@Jolly said in Another Perspective:
To convince the Japanese we could bomb them as many times as needed?
That’s not my point. The writer states that if Hiroshima wasn’t the center of uranium enrichment of a nuclear program very close to fulfillment, then it was a civilian target and therefore a war crime. That’s bullshit. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd Army and was of incredible strategic significance. If you hold the author’s view then Nagasaki (another very important strategic point, and the port where tens of thousands of soldiers were deployed) was absolutely a war crime as it had no involvement in the very behind nuclear program.
Beyond that, why are these war crimes while the firebombings of Tokyo was not?
A somewhat valid point, but aren't you picking nits? The main thrust of the article is that both Germany and Japan were further along in atomic bomb development than the American people had any clue about...Even after the U.S. used the bomb and the public knew nuclear weapons were possible.
-
Please. All attempts at portraying their nuclear programs as being further ahead than we thought are stretches at the very best.
Beyond that, again, there were multiple targets selected and the final choices came down to weather… It wasn’t about trying to end their nuclear program, if they were concerned that the Japanese were that close, then they may have been less inclined to use the weapons out of fear of retaliation. This is just another attempt at trying to play a moral game that is not necessary and hurts the argument. The simple fact is that we had a different set of mores when it came to war in those days. We were engaged with an enemy that believed in TOTAL WAR and had completely mobilized the civilian population. Beyond that, it was the steps take. In WWII and somewhat WWI that shaped our current sensibilities. It was after the war that we collectively realized that we were pushing too far. But you can’t base decisions made then on our moral understandings of today. At that point, the most moral thing to do was end the war. Quickly and decisively.
To try to paint an ethical reasoning for it by today’s standards is to legitimize the arguments of those that paint it as a war crime. The more you defend the decision the more credibility you give the historical revisionists.
We used nuclear weapons. It was horrible. As far as whether it was appropriate or even necessary is a question that we can not ever answer without living through those times.
The Brad
-
The amount of war crimes in WWII on all sides fairly staggers one's mind. It's awfully difficult to take a righteous stand.
Still, that was a great article.
@Mik said in Another Perspective:
The amount of war crimes in WWII on all sides fairly staggers one's mind. It's awfully difficult to take a righteous stand.
I would argue that the period between 1914 and 1944-45 represents the greatest 30 years of technological advancement in our history. Technology completely changed the scope of war and it took those tragedies for humanity to step back and realize that new standards were necessary. I frankly believe that the lessons of WWII were truly necessary.
-
Please. All attempts at portraying their nuclear programs as being further ahead than we thought are stretches at the very best.
Beyond that, again, there were multiple targets selected and the final choices came down to weather… It wasn’t about trying to end their nuclear program, if they were concerned that the Japanese were that close, then they may have been less inclined to use the weapons out of fear of retaliation. This is just another attempt at trying to play a moral game that is not necessary and hurts the argument. The simple fact is that we had a different set of mores when it came to war in those days. We were engaged with an enemy that believed in TOTAL WAR and had completely mobilized the civilian population. Beyond that, it was the steps take. In WWII and somewhat WWI that shaped our current sensibilities. It was after the war that we collectively realized that we were pushing too far. But you can’t base decisions made then on our moral understandings of today. At that point, the most moral thing to do was end the war. Quickly and decisively.
To try to paint an ethical reasoning for it by today’s standards is to legitimize the arguments of those that paint it as a war crime. The more you defend the decision the more credibility you give the historical revisionists.
We used nuclear weapons. It was horrible. As far as whether it was appropriate or even necessary is a question that we can not ever answer without living through those times.
@LuFins-Dad said in Another Perspective:
Beyond that, again, there were multiple targets selected and the final choices came down to weather…
That's partially true. Hiroshima was the first target on the The List of Twelve. Nagasaki was the secondary target the day Bockscar dropped Fatman. Kokura was the city with the weather problem. As was the case with most bombing runs in WW2, there were primary and secondary targets assigned.
The simple reason for Hiroshima was Okinawa.
-
Both Japan and Germany had atomic bomb programs. The Japanese started theirs in 1940. They had reached the point where they had cyclotrons and thermal diffusion apparatus. Interestingly enough, the sub mentioned in the original article was said to have been carrying uranium by the U.S. Perhaps the author is whistling in the wind, but it is a fact that North Korea's supply of uranium comes from the Hungnam region...A region where Japan did have some of their nuclear program and a region the Soviet Union occupied after WW2.
Maybe there is no there, there, but it would be interesting to know exactly where the Japanese were in 1945.
