Saw enough at Hiroshima to back eradication of nukes

Comments on Topix forums : It appears that the Citizen-Times has ignored the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Images and Stories from Eyewitness Accounts which occurred at UNC Asheville on July 9. Another account is ...

[timpeck]

The Moral Goodness of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima

By John Lewis | April 2006
http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/the-moral-g...

On August 6, 1945 the American Air Force incinerated Hiroshima, Japan with an atomic bomb. On August 9, Nagasaki was obliterated. The fireballs killed some 175,000 people. They followed months of horror, when American airplanes firebombed civilians and reduced cities to rubble. Facing extermination, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. The invasion of Japan was cancelled, and countless American lives were saved. The Japanese accepted military occupation, embraced a constitutional government, and renounced war permanently. The effects were so beneficent, so wide-ranging and so long-term, that the bombings must be ranked among the most moral acts ever committed...

[retiredlawman]

Remember Pearl Harbor. Payback is a bitch. Good job, United States.

[Thomas38]

timpeck wrote:

The Moral Goodness of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima
By John Lewis | April 2006
http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/the-moral-g...
On August 6, 1945 the American Air Force incinerated Hiroshima, Japan with an atomic bomb. On August 9, Nagasaki was obliterated. The fireballs killed some 175,000 people. They followed months of horror, when American airplanes firebombed civilians and reduced cities to rubble. Facing extermination, the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. The invasion of Japan was cancelled, and countless American lives were saved. The Japanese accepted military occupation, embraced a constitutional government, and renounced war permanently. The effects were so beneficent, so wide-ranging and so long-term, that the bombings must be ranked among the most moral acts ever committed...

Yes sir, Tim is reflecting a popular myth not even supported by some of our military leaders of the time. There was not total agreement at all about using the bomb. In fact the very scientists who created the device banned together to resist it's use.

The dropping of the bomb was far more a demonstration for the Soviets than it was a necessary adjunct to the defeat of Japan.

"To sum up: That Japan was defeated and suing for peace before the bombs were dropped is a fact established beyond doubt. The motivations of U.S. rulers in dropping the bombs anyway is, of course, a disputed question. But the evidence utterly fails to support the official alibi that it was done to avoid costly battles. On the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were murdered, not to end World War II, but to launch what later came to be known as the cold war."

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.h...

[Thomas38]

"Eisenhower’s Opposition to Dropping the Bomb

I had always, maybe somewhat reflexively, argued that the atom bombs convinced a recalcitrant Japan to surrender, saving us from having to engage in an unfathomably brutal invasion. But I just came across this passage, from page 10 of this book:
<blockquote>Eisenhower had little, if any, influence on President Harry S. Truman’s decision. Not until the final Big Three conference at Potsdam in mid-July did he even learn that scientists and engineers working under the direction of the army had been trying to develop a bomb since the beginning of the war. Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson informed him that the first bomb had just been successfully tested and that this revolutionary weapon would be used to force the surrender of Japan. Eisenhower strenuously objected. Japan was already defeated and making overtures for peace, he protested, and the use of such a devastating weapon might tarnish the image of the United States at the moment of its greatest international triumph. Truman’s mind was made up, however, before hearing Eisenhower’s arguments. Truman believed that the bomb would shorten the war and save the lives of American soldiers. Furthermore, accepting the advice of Stimson, he believed that the bomb could be a “master card” in international relations, a weapon of such awesome force that it would give the United States a decisive advantage in peace negotiations with the Soviets."

http://elvisberg.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/eis...

[Mtnbred]

Exactly Retired Lawman!! We did what needed doing and it worked!

[Thomas38]

"THIS PAGE REGRADED UNCLASSIFIED
Order Sec Army By TAG per
720564

DECLASSIFIED
DOD Dir. 5200.9, Sept. 27, 1958
NWD by _____ date 3 Nov 61

July 4, 1945

Dear

Inclosed is the text of a petition which will be submitted to the
President of the United States. As you will see, this petition is
based on purely moral considerations.

It may very well be that the decision of the President whether or
not to use atomic bombs in the war against Japan will largely be
based on considerations of expediency. On the basis of expediency,
many arguments could be put forward both for and against our use of
atomic bombs against Japan. Such arguments could be considered only
within the framework of a thorough analysis of the situation which
will face the United States after this war and it was felt that no
useful purpose would be served by considering arguments of
expediency in a short petition.

However small the chance might be that our petition may influence
the course of events, I personally feel that it would be a matter of
importance if a large number of scientists who have worked in this
field went clearly and unmistakably on record as to their opposition
on moral grounds to the use of these bombs in the present phase of
the war.

Many of us are inclined to say that individual Germans share the
guilt for the acts which Germany committed during this war because
they did not raise their voices in protest against these acts. Their
defense that their protest would have been of no avail hardly seems
acceptable even though these Germans could not have protests without
running risks to life and liberty. We are in a position to raise our
voices without incurring any such risks even though we might incur
the displeasure of some of those who are at present in charge of
controlling the work on "atomic power".

The fact that the people of the people of the United States are
unaware of the choice which faces us increases our responsibility in
this matter since those who have worked on "atomic power" represent
a sample of the population and they alone are in a position to form
an opinion and declare their stand.

Anyone who might wish to go on record by signing the petition ought
to have an opportunity to do so and, therefore, it would be
appreciated if you could give every member of your group an
opportunity for signing.

Leo Szilard

P.S.-- Anyone who wants to sign the petition ought to sign both
attached copies and ought to read not only the petition but also
this covering letter."

http://www.dannen.com/decision/45-07-04.html

[retiredlawman]

Roger that!

The LTE needed to be near the Arizona at Pearl, or in the first wave of a beach landing on Iwo Jima, or emptied a few caves on Peleliu, or have taken a stroll with those on the Bataan Death March, to have had his thinking adjusted.

[retiredlawman]

It's a shame the REMF's survive to hand out this drivel while the good part of the gene pool gets shot to pieces during the real fighting.

[G-hogg]

Once a war starts, we have already departed from morality.The more terrible it can be made, the less likely we are to repeat it.(even though humans have a short memory)

"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion." Inge

"Violence and naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." Heinlein

[SPUD4402]

G-hogg wrote:

Once a war starts, we have already departed from morality.The more terrible it can be made, the less likely we are to repeat it.(even though humans have a short memory)
"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion." Inge
"Violence and naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." Heinlein

Good post,the japanese were talking peace but on their terms,the terms for all of the people who started ww2 was unconditional surrender and they didn't accept this even after the first atomic bomb. It took the 2nd one to bring them around.

[Thomas38]

G-hogg wrote:

Once a war starts, we have already departed from morality.The more terrible it can be made, the less likely we are to repeat it.(even though humans have a short memory)
"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion." Inge
"Violence and naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Nations and peoples who forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms." Heinlein

I agree with some of what you say but not with the notion that "Violence and naked force has settled more issues in history than any other factor". Every so called settled issue creates smoldering resentments that persist. I think we can thank MacArthur for helping to mold Japan into a modern competitive state that has eschewed violence, thus breaking the chain.

Remember, the victors of WW I were not so wise and sadly sowed the seeds of a far greater conflict. This is a lesson we need to take into consideration as we deal with the Mideast issues where memories will not soon forget the insults to their culture.

A general rule, I firmly believe in is, "violence begets violence".

"Anyone who has proclaimed violence his method inexorably must choose lying as his principle."

~Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[Thomas38]

SPUD4402 wrote:

<quoted text>Good post,the japanese were talking peace but on their terms,the terms for all of the people who started ww2 was unconditional surrender and they didn't accept this even after the first atomic bomb. It took the 2nd one to bring them around.

You say this but do you know it for a fact or are you just mouthing more of the traditional viewpoint? The evidence and opinions of people like Dwight Eisenhower contradict this view.

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon 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."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

See: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Mtnbred]

Thomas38 wrote:

<quoted text>
You say this but do you know it for a fact or are you just mouthing more of the traditional viewpoint? The evidence and opinions of people like Dwight Eisenhower contradict this view.
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon 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."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
See: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

How much longer would this war have went on? How many more Americans and their allies to die?
The Japs struck us first and they paid the price.

[free]

Mtnbred wrote:

<quoted text>
How much longer would this war have went on? How many more Americans and their allies to die?
The Japs struck us first and they paid the price.

As an American I appreciate that we all benefitted from the dropping of this bomb. To sit here and enjoy the freedoms and protections of being an American while boo-hooing, Monday morning quarterbacking and complaining about how it gets done is so hypocritical.

I don't care what it takes to protect my Country, just do it and do it right the first time and there won't be a need for a second round. That's been our downfall since Vietnam til now, we don't have what it takes to do the job right. Shock and awe if done right should have been over and done with within a week, couple dozen daisy cutters and we could have come home.

[Thomas38]

Mtnbred wrote:

<quoted text>
How much longer would this war have went on? How many more Americans and their allies to die?
The Japs struck us first and they paid the price.

I can only rely on those who were there and involved in the decision. You can choose to ignore the voices who objected but the fact is we do not know, from this perspective, what might have come out of avoiding the use of the bomb.

Wars are not started by the common man. They are started by the ruling class for, in many cases, economic reasons. Japan felt threatened in that respect and thus made the error in thinking that the way out was to drive the US back to the mainland.

"Yamamoto certainly believed that Japan could not win a protracted war with the United States, and, moreover, seems to have believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had become a blunder - even though he was the person who came up with the idea of a a surprise attack on it! The Reluctant Admiral relates that "Yamamoto alone" (while all his staff members were celebrating) spent the day after Pearl Harbor "sunk in apparent depression". He is also known to have been upset by the bungling of the Foreign Ministry which led to the attack happening while the countries were technically at peace."

http://www.japan-101.com/history/isoroku_yama...

[Mtnbred]

Thomas38 wrote:

<quoted text>
I can only rely on those who were there and involved in the decision. You can choose to ignore the voices who objected but the fact is we do not know, from this perspective, what might have come out of avoiding the use of the bomb.
Wars are not started by the common man. They are started by the ruling class for, in many cases, economic reasons. Japan felt threatened in that respect and thus made the error in thinking that the way out was to drive the US back to the mainland.
"Yamamoto certainly believed that Japan could not win a protracted war with the United States, and, moreover, seems to have believed that the Pearl Harbor attack had become a blunder - even though he was the person who came up with the idea of a a surprise attack on it! The Reluctant Admiral relates that "Yamamoto alone" (while all his staff members were celebrating) spent the day after Pearl Harbor "sunk in apparent depression". He is also known to have been upset by the bungling of the Foreign Ministry which led to the attack happening while the countries were technically at peace."
http://www.japan-101.com/history/isoroku_yama...

Okay, with this concept, what role does economics play in attacking Pearl Harbor?

[Old Rose]

Thomas38 wrote:

<quoted text>
You say this but do you know it for a fact or are you just mouthing more of the traditional viewpoint? The evidence and opinions of people like Dwight Eisenhower contradict this view.
(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon 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."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
See: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

Thomas, can ya get a good quote from one of the Japs who wanted to continue the war after the bombs were dropped? Can ya get a good wuote from one of the troops who might have died in the war if it continued?

All these quotes you have are from big people with little guts, and even less responsible thought for our country or its troops. They were all safe behind the barriers of our nation, and had those bombs not been used, we could possibly be speaking Japanese, and eating fihs heads on rice. OR

[G-hogg]

Thomas38 wrote:

<quoted text>
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon 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."
- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.
See: http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

"The Japanese were already defeated...." is a fact but a fact that was not acceptable within the code of the Bushido which calls for a fight to the death, which the Japanese Army, Navy, and Air Force had already demonstrated a willingness to do. Upper echelons reported after the war that there could have been no other way to end it other than with use of the atomic bomb because women and children had already been harnessed to the war effort and preparing for the final struggle. Hirohito carefully did not mention the term "surrender" in his announcement to the end of hostilities but referred only to "suffering the insufferable".
I find it unusual that the fire bombings of Tokyo are accepted by Eisenhower as perfunctory but the use of the bomb is in some way immoral. The end result is the same and if the use of the bomb ultimately spared a million US casualties and obliteration of the Japanese populace, it must certainly served its intended purpose.
As for destroying women and children....should not the makers of war, who demand the support of women and children, not take into account that they have committed them to the same fate that they wish to impose on others? As long as the Armies are supplied and encouraged, they will fight until there is no one left or until the support collapses.

[Thomas38]

Gentleman, I present only historical records of those who opposed the bomb's use. You can disagree, to be sure, but your opinions, like mine, are based on something you read or were taught and I respectfully submit that neither of the two previous posters seem willing change their opinions.

G-hogg, you have done nothing but to present the same old argument which many find to be lacking, many found to be lacking at the time the decision was made. This is one of those deals, once the trigger was pulled there was no going back but I,like many others, see it as a dark chapter in American history, one that we can learn from or not but I submit if we do not make better decisions we will ultimately be doomed as a civilization, perhaps as a species.

I could fill pages with the analysis of others who would support my thinking but what is the point? It's done with and in the end, all of it is just opinion.

"The fruits of victory are tumbling into our mouths too quickly."
- Emperor Hirohito

[joe]

The lte wtr is actually trying to compare Iraq to WWII adn the droping of atomic bombs. The truth is we told Japan we had the bombs and were going to use them unless they surrender. But they did not.

The real truth it is war adn our goal is to keep our people alive. You do that by stopping them from killing us. If they die they die.

Also think if we had not drop the bomb. The world would not know the destruction. The cold war might have been a real war.