Drone War: Obama's Semi-Secret War

[xbuzzerx]

The unconditional surrender we sought was removing all gains the Japanese had made prior to us entering the war. They had taken large portions of China and southeast Asia as resource supplies. It was NOT just the imperial succession or keeping the line. Please read more on the war.

Here is an article that agrees with you about using the bomb BUT removes many of your assumptions about the Japanese.

http://voices.yahoo.com/the-atomic-b...94.html?cat=37

The enemy was talking conditions. And the Russians were about to get into the war. How wonderful would have been a cold war on two fronts with Tokyo split down the middle? There are larger issues at work. And to be quite honest achieving those goals was worth the price in blood of our enemies.

To your previous point about us being similar because of the crimes in Vietnam.... ten million Chinese civilians were killed in China by the Japanese. Ten Million.... yup just a few bad apples in the Japanese Army. Vietnam was a TOTAL of all at the highest number estimated of 3 million... that is including legitimate warrior on warrior legal killing. That warrior count was a little over a million including both sides. The civilian side was two million... I just dont get how you apply modern concepts of collateral damage to WWII. it has no place in context.

Finally my entire point about the 'senseless' bombing is that is a today mindset. It has zero to do with how the world thought in WWII. Otherwise why did we and the axis powers bomb civilian populations for five years?

Jayhawk you're on a crusade to prove that what the Japanese Imperial Army did was bad and no one is disagreeing with you. But it's also not the point. And yes, I think if you ask a mother whose child was disfigured by napalm in Vietnam, it's not going to matter much to her when you throw numbers and tables at her about "how many more" people the Japanese did things to. Why in the world does that matter to you when it happens to you or to your friends & family?

Bottom line on that topic about atrocities/bad things done in war is that it's a double-edged sword. Don't expect the world to acknowledge your righteousness while you talk about how bad the Imperial Japanese or the Iraqi insurgents are if you turn around and say dropping nukes on cities was a good thing.

[JayHawk]

Jayhawk you're on a crusade to prove that what the Japanese Imperial Army did was bad and no one is disagreeing with you. But it's also not the point. And yes, I think if you ask a mother whose child was disfigured by napalm in Vietnam, it's not going to matter much to her when you throw numbers and tables at her about "how many more" people the Japanese did things to. Why in the world does that matter to you when it happens to you or to your friends & family?

Bottom line on that topic about atrocities/bad things done in war is that it's a double-edged sword. Don't expect the world to acknowledge your righteousness while you talk about how bad the Imperial Japanese or the Iraqi insurgents are if you turn around and say dropping nukes on cities was a good thing.

The point of your comparison previously was that Vietnam atrocities occurred so therefore we should view all Americans as baby killers. I have since been waiting for you to admit that the Japanese Imperial Army was TRAINED to complete these atrocities and did so willingly where as the atrocities committed by a few mostly were by very few. A lot of them were known because Americans sought charges or newsmen to tell the story to. So the idea is that you admit a people who would do such things as a entire group of people would stand and fight to the last man. In fact the Imperial Army and Navy attempted to take over the government to prevent capitulation. SO based on fanatical behavior and irrational beliefs I do not think a island by Island taking of the Japanese Homeland would have been pretty at all. While we invaded each island we would have dropped conventional ordnance on all of those cities with even more civilians at risk because it would have been city after city not just two. The other reason for using numbers is to get you to admit the ideology of what was considered fair and legal world wide was different in the 40's. Hence the bombing of cities ad naseum until the end of the war.

Finally I still and will always maintain that dropping the bombs were a good thing that resulted in the end of the conflict on our terms and a domination of the western pacific for the next 50 years. Only now to be challenged by China which will ultimately fail in their effort to push us away from the western pacific.

[opinterph]

Gee golly I wonder why the Japanese rejected the Potsdam Proclamation ?? I wonder why the military leading the war effort attempted a coup to prevent surrender even after the bombs had been dropped and they knew they would die as a nation.

Sometimes the circumstances of war dictate that “giving up” is the only viable course of action left to choose.

Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

– Emperor Hirohito, Accepting the Potsdam Declaration, Radio Broadcast.

Transmitted by Domei and Recorded by the Federal Communications Commission, 14 August 1945

[JayHawk]

Opi you do realize the Potsdam rejection occurred in July when it was issued and was only accepted after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[bankside]

It doesn't take incineration of women, children, churches, homes, libraries, schools, and more to do that.

Did you forget men in that list?

[opinterph]

Opi you do realize the Potsdam rejection occurred in July when it was issued and was only accepted after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes. And some of the Emperor's other remarks in the same message are also “face-saving.”

Perhaps not unlike allowing officers to keep their sidearms and horses in an earlier conflict.

[Kulindahr]

Then why did we destroy city after city to win WWII? Ever been to Europe? There are areas of Germany that have been completely wiped off the planet and then rebuilt. Why did Hitler bomb the UK day after day?

It was the mindset of war. You see it effected in Korea and Vietnam where carpet bombing occurred to subdue the enemy. However at that point after knowing the full effect of nuclear weapons we did not use tactical or larger nucs in those campaigns.

The Vatican tried to arrange Japanese observers at tests of the A-bomb. All efforts were rebuffed. Observers reporting what the bomb did would have convinced the emperor and command staff to end the war. The conclusion is that our military incinerated tens of thousands of people for no other reason that to demonstrate that they could.

[Kulindahr]

Did you forget men in that list?

From the attitude shown, he wouldn't have cared about men at all.

[xbuzzerx]

Finally I still and will always maintain that dropping the bombs were a good thing that resulted in the end of the conflict on our terms and a domination of the western pacific for the next 50 years. Only now to be challenged by China which will ultimately fail in their effort to push us away from the western pacific.

And what I have repeatedly tried to show you is that the U.S. victory of the war, getting all the terms they wanted, and dominating the Pacific for the next 50 years were not contingent on dropping the bombs. And you have not shown that they were. YOu've only attempted to justified the decision, in a way that has not been proven very persuasive.

[Kulindahr]

And what I have repeatedly tried to show you is that the U.S. victory of the war, getting all the terms they wanted, and dominating the Pacific for the next 50 years were not contingent on dropping the bombs. And you have not shown that they were. YOu've only attempted to justified the decision, in a way that has not been proven very persuasive.

Yes -- they could have allowed those Japanese observers, and some Russian ones, to see what the Bomb could do; they didn't need to incinerate tens of thousands.

[Jack Springer]

Jayhawk you're on a crusade to prove that what the Japanese Imperial Army did was bad and no one is disagreeing with you. But it's also not the point. And yes, I think if you ask a mother whose child was disfigured by napalm in Vietnam, it's not going to matter much to her when you throw numbers and tables at her about "how many more" people the Japanese did things to. Why in the world does that matter to you when it happens to you or to your friends & family?

Bottom line on that topic about atrocities/bad things done in war is that it's a double-edged sword. Don't expect the world to acknowledge your righteousness while you talk about how bad the Imperial Japanese or the Iraqi insurgents are if you turn around and say dropping nukes on cities was a good thing.

Japan was given an opportunity to end the war after the first bomb was dropped -- they refused.

I think you're overlooking the arrogance of the Japanese and the Emperor.

In the beginning Japan attacked the US -- not the other way around.

[xbuzzerx]

Japan was given an opportunity to end the war after the first bomb was dropped -- they refused.

I think you're overlooking the arrogance of the Japanese and the Emperor.

In the beginning Japan attacked the US -- not the other way around.

Your point has absolutely nothing to do with the 'necessity' of the bomb.

[chance1]

Japan was given an opportunity to end the war after the first bomb was dropped -- they refused.

I think you're overlooking the arrogance of the Japanese and the Emperor.

In the beginning Japan attacked the US -- not the other way around.

the Japanese as victims during WW II is an interesting POV

in bizarro land

welcome back

[xbuzzerx]

the Japanese as victims during WW II is an interesting POV

in bizarro land

welcome back

It would be an interesting point of view if it were what was being discussed but it wasn't.

[Rolyo85]

I would totally say they were a victim. Nobody was NOT a victim in WWII. Including the Germans. And frankly, I find this "they were against us, so they were evil" mentality dumb. In the grand scheme of things, the US damaged Japan far worse than Japan hurt the US, yet they don't demonize you. Quite the reverse actually.

[chance1]

I would totally say they were a victim. Nobody was NOT a victim in WWII. Including the Germans. And frankly, I find this "they were against us, so they were evil" mentality dumb. In the grand scheme of things, the US damaged Japan far worse than Japan hurt the US, yet they don't demonize you. Quite the reverse actually.

u can say whatever u like - i won't suggest consequences for those thoughts

pretty sure what i read was that the japanese attacked pearl harbor - unannounced

and flying planes into ships ....... and refusing to surrender

demonizing ? not sure where that came from

i'd say their actions speak for themselves

and reasonable and reasoned types understand who did what to whom - context - etc.

happy holidays

[xbuzzerx]

u can say whatever u like - i won't suggest consequences for those thoughts

pretty sure what i read was that the japanese attacked pearl harbor - unannounced

and flying planes into ships ....... and refusing to surrender

demonizing ? not sure where that came from

i'd say their actions speak for themselves

and reasonable and reasoned types understand who did what to whom - context - etc.

happy holidays

Someone could turn right around and make the same argument about Japanese internment and using nuclear weapons on cities. "Their actions speak for themselves."

So quick to throw out righteous judgments in a war where no one's hands were bloodless and no one's moral compass was pinpoint stainless.

[Jack Springer]

I would totally say they were a victim. Nobody was NOT a victim in WWII. Including the Germans. And frankly, I find this "they were against us, so they were evil" mentality dumb. In the grand scheme of things, the US damaged Japan far worse than Japan hurt the US, yet they don't demonize you. Quite the reverse actually.

Have you ever read a history book? Does Pearl Harbor and December 7, 1941 ring a bell for you?

I refuse to believe that you are serious. You must be playing the devil's advocate.

The United States of America rebuilt Japan after WWII. Japan had modern plants, new roads, a democratic government of the people not a monarchy ... all at the expense of the USA.

Thanks for the welcome back Chance.

Seriously, I cannot believe we are having this conversation about US blame.

[Jack Springer]

Someone could turn right around and make the same argument about Japanese internment and using nuclear weapons on cities. "Their actions speak for themselves."

So quick to throw out righteous judgments in a war where no one's hands were bloodless and no one's moral compass was pinpoint stainless.

Have American schools screwed up education this badly?

[xbuzzerx]

Have American schools screwed up education this badly?

If by that you mean that we were taught to critically think, yes. Try it sometime.

[Kulindahr]

Someone could turn right around and make the same argument about Japanese internment and using nuclear weapons on cities. "Their actions speak for themselves."

So quick to throw out righteous judgments in a war where no one's hands were bloodless and no one's moral compass was pinpoint stainless.

Chance would probably still be cheering for the unnecessary incineration of tens of thousands if Gen. Groves has gotten his way and we'd nuked five more Japanese cities.

[Jack Springer]

If by that you mean that we were taught to critically think, yes. Try it sometime.

You know what I was talking about.

Did you learn in school that the US abused Japan?

[xbuzzerx]

You know what I was talking about.

Did you learn in school that the US abused Japan?

What does this infantile question have to do with acknowledging that both sides committed things that we SHOULD be able to agree were "bad things"?

"He started it" as a serious argument in a question of something like incinerating 300,000 people without clear and dire need doesn't even belong in the discussion. And if that's your position then don't even engage in discussions about history because you clearly don't have the ability to grasp the complexity of the topic.

[JayHawk]

And what I have repeatedly tried to show you is that the U.S. victory of the war, getting all the terms they wanted, and dominating the Pacific for the next 50 years were not contingent on dropping the bombs. And you have not shown that they were. YOu've only attempted to justified the decision, in a way that has not been proven very persuasive.

Was Japan invaded by Russia? There can be no method of proof that determines what might have been... you would like me to prove a non-occuring reality? Really?

Here is a grip you appear to have lost yours.



Russia slinked back to Russia and let us dominate Japan which became our strongest ally and base of impact in the western Pacific... I wonder why that happened... sure looked the same in Germany right? Oh wait it didn't did it?

The only thing you have proven is that in your opinion more Americans dying to unseat a government that refused to surrender would have been better ... in your estimation. It is odd that you look at a bomb being dropped and causing that much damage and yet they didn't surrender BUT that doesn't mean it would have been tough to conventionally unseat them from their islands....

I say it is pure ignorance to believe otherwise. How would an island by Island campaign have looked? Would there have been incessant bombing of the conventional nature city by city as we marched forward conquering the defeated but yet to surrender Army?

You have yet to prove any of that... you just think it makes you more humane to say it would not.

[xbuzzerx]

Was Japan invaded by Russia? There can be no method of proof that determines what might have been... you would like me to prove a non-occuring reality? Really?

Here is a grip you appear to have lost yours.



Russia slinked back to Russia and let us dominate Japan which became our strongest ally and base of impact in the western Pacific... I wonder why that happened... sure looked the same in Germany right? Oh wait it didn't did it?

The only thing you have proven is that in your opinion more Americans dying to unseat a government that refused to surrender would have been better ... in your estimation. It is odd that you look at a bomb being dropped and causing that much damage and yet they didn't surrender BUT that doesn't mean it would have been tough to conventionally unseat them from their islands....

I say it is pure ignorance to believe otherwise. How would an island by Island campaign have looked? Would there have been incessant bombing of the conventional nature city by city as we marched forward conquering the defeated but yet to surrender Army?

You have yet to prove any of that... you just think it makes you more humane to say it would not.

Jayhawk before telling anyone to get a grip you might want to re-examine the fact that, literally, your position on "why dropping the bombs was good" has cycled through like 6 different arguments, with you instantly abandoning each one. There's a reason for that.

Your (new) argument is now "Russia wouldn't have been intimidated by us if we hadn't." (Note that this is not the argument you've used so far.) Alright. So tell me what Russia got from us nuking 300k civilians that they wouldn't have gotten from being invited to witness a test detonation, as Kulindahr suggested.

[Rolyo85]

Jack, I am sorry if I consider two entire cities with mushroom clouds above them to be a bit more serious tragedy than a military base. It is not "one or the other" situation, both sides carry a lot of blame for a lot of atrocities. But to claim that somehow Hiroshima and Nagazaki were "ok" because you guys were "provoked" is inhumane to say the least.

[rareboy]

What all the posters have lost sight of in the discussion is that the original point had to do with the change in tactics of war.

In WWII, there still was this notion by both the Axis and Allied powers that everyone was expendable. That total war was somehow acceptable. So the Blitz, the bombing of Dresden, and ultimately...the use of nuclear weapons on a civilian population with hundreds of thousands of injured and dead was considered okay.

But then, over the next 40 or so years, this notion changed.

Even in Iraq, where there were still tens of thousands of collateral deaths of civilians, the whole concept that was being put on display for the world was more carefully targeted strikes to minimize civilian deaths. This was the same approach that the NATO alliance attempted to employ in Libya.

The drone era is intended to be an even more surgically precise response to taking out the enemy. To remove the leadership and the reduce the ability of the enemy to prosecute a war.

...and that is why I am puzzled by the outrage on the right. I get the sense that if the US was flying manned planes over the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan and dropping bunker busters, that somehow this might be more acceptable to them?

[Jack Springer]

Jayhawk before telling anyone to get a grip you might want to re-examine the fact that, literally, your position on "why dropping the bombs was good" has cycled through like 6 different arguments, with you instantly abandoning each one. There's a reason for that.

Your (new) argument is now "Russia wouldn't have been intimidated by us if we hadn't." (Note that this is not the argument you've used so far.) Alright. So tell me what Russia got from us nuking 300k civilians that they wouldn't have gotten from being invited to witness a test detonation, as Kulindahr suggested.

The Japanese attacked the USA. Over 60 million people were killed in WWII. Japan also committed unspeakable atrocities in treatment of prisoners and conquered civilians. After Japan's Axis partner was defeated and the Japanese were in a position of defending their homeland and knew that they would be defeated -- they refused to surrender and stop the war. Truman saw that many more would be killed in a prolonged invasion of Japan. The USA dropped one bomb. Told the Japanese to surrender or they would drop another one. The Japanese did not. The USA dropped another bomb. Japanese surrendered. The USA became a compassionate winner that rebuilt Japan into a bigger economic power than was it was before the war.

... and your point is that the US was the aggressor? I'm sorry the position that you and Rolyo85 have makes no sense and ignores the facts.

[rareboy]

^ And again.....

Can we not just get this thread topic back on track?

What all the posters have lost sight of in the discussion is that the original point had to do with the change in tactics of war.

In WWII, there still was this notion by both the Axis and Allied powers that everyone was expendable. That total war was somehow acceptable. So the Blitz, the bombing of Dresden, and ultimately...the use of nuclear weapons on a civilian population with hundreds of thousands of injured and dead was considered okay.

But then, over the next 40 or so years, this notion changed.

Even in Iraq, where there were still tens of thousands of collateral deaths of civilians, the whole concept that was being put on display for the world was more carefully targeted strikes to minimize civilian deaths. This was the same approach that the NATO alliance attempted to employ in Libya.

The drone era is intended to be an even more surgically precise response to taking out the enemy. To remove the leadership and the reduce the ability of the enemy to prosecute a war.

...and that is why I am puzzled by the outrage on the right. I get the sense that if the US was flying manned planes over the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan and dropping bunker busters, that somehow this might be more acceptable to them?

[JayHawk]

Jayhawk before telling anyone to get a grip you might want to re-examine the fact that, literally, your position on "why dropping the bombs was good" has cycled through like 6 different arguments, with you instantly abandoning each one. There's a reason for that.

Your (new) argument is now "Russia wouldn't have been intimidated by us if we hadn't." (Note that this is not the argument you've used so far.) Alright. So tell me what Russia got from us nuking 300k civilians that they wouldn't have gotten from being invited to witness a test detonation, as Kulindahr suggested.

You consider them all separate and failed arguments because that suits you... I continue to provide proof after proof that it was necessary and you have yet to describe the island by island fight because you know that is a losing argument. You continue to latch onto this idea that the world is won by diplomatic convincing and that might has no place. I would suggest you live in an alternate reality.

[xbuzzerx]

The Japanese attacked the USA. Over 60 million people were killed in WWII. Japan also committed unspeakable atrocities in treatment of prisoners and conquered civilians. After Japan's Axis partner was defeated and the Japanese were in a position of defending their homeland and knew that they would be defeated -- they refused to surrender and stop the war. Truman saw that many more would be killed in a prolonged invasion of Japan. The USA dropped one bomb. Told the Japanese to surrender or they would drop another one. The Japanese did not. The USA dropped another bomb. Japanese surrendered. The USA became a compassionate winner that rebuilt Japan into a bigger economic power than was it was before the war.

... and your point is that the US was the aggressor? I'm sorry the position that you and Rolyo85 have makes no sense and ignores the facts.

I have never once said the US was the aggressor. I'm not going to respond to misconstructions of my actual points whether they are being misconstrued on purpose or out of an inability to read them properly, but in any event do not reflect what was actually said.

[JayHawk]

What all the posters have lost sight of in the discussion is that the original point had to do with the change in tactics of war.

In WWII, there still was this notion by both the Axis and Allied powers that everyone was expendable. That total war was somehow acceptable. So the Blitz, the bombing of Dresden, and ultimately...the use of nuclear weapons on a civilian population with hundreds of thousands of injured and dead was considered okay.

But then, over the next 40 or so years, this notion changed.

Even in Iraq, where there were still tens of thousands of collateral deaths of civilians, the whole concept that was being put on display for the world was more carefully targeted strikes to minimize civilian deaths. This was the same approach that the NATO alliance attempted to employ in Libya.

The drone era is intended to be an even more surgically precise response to taking out the enemy. To remove the leadership and the reduce the ability of the enemy to prosecute a war.

...and that is why I am puzzled by the outrage on the right. I get the sense that if the US was flying manned planes over the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan and dropping bunker busters, that somehow this might be more acceptable to them?

Somehow buzzer doesn't accept that or the other six reasons... not different arguments but cumulative reasons the bomb was dropped...

And the conversation moved on because apparently this is buzzer cross to bear... who knew.

I watched another video that youtube feels I need to view since clicking on this idiotic conspiracy theory.

Here for your viewing pleasure....



This is all constructed outrage by some preacher who is some purple koolaid wanna be in my estimation.

[xbuzzerx]

You consider them all separate and failed arguments because that suits you...

No because, as I pointed out, all you did was make justifications of it, rather than show how it was 'necessary.' And since you cannot show that it was 'necessary' you are out to the wind buck naked trying to say it was a good thing to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians.

I continue to provide proof after proof that it was necessary and you have yet to describe the island by island fight because you know that is a losing argument. You continue to latch onto this idea that the world is won by diplomatic convincing and that might has no place. I would suggest you live in an alternate reality.

Repeating over and over that you THINK it was good because x y and z is good enough for you, whether that argument is "Japan started it" or "Japan's troops did bad things" are all completely irrelevant to the question of necessity.

Somehow buzzer doesn't accept that or the other six reasons... not different arguments but cumulative reasons the bomb was dropped...

And the conversation moved on because apparently this is buzzer cross to bear... who knew.

Actually what Rareboy said doesn't change the point of debate between you and I at all because even if we say "within the greater context of the war, people weren't going out of their way to minimize casualties" that should basically have no bearing on whether or not we can agree dropping bombs that incinerate 300k civilians is a bad thing. You find this an exceptionally difficult thing to do because it doesn't jive correctly with a preset mental image that the U.S. was the holy white knight of WWII. I'm completely comfortable with shades of gray because that's the reality of the world and if you deal in facts you're going to come to grips with the fact that good guys and bad guys are a kindergarten concept that doesn't translate well into talking about the geopolitical conflicts between nations very often.

I have absolutely no problem saying "the U.S.'s position in WWII was correct, but the nuking of two cities was very bad." And I'm unsure why that's something you're terrified of being able to say, unless you need to view it in a stark simplicity of good guy- bad guy.

I pointed out that the nuking of the two cities was unnecessary. Not that WWII didn't have lots of casualties, not that Japanese imperial troops were saints, or any other nonsense you and Jack Springer have thrown back as your "counterarguments."

[JayHawk]

Here since you already admitted it let me help you out with the English language...

Definition for justification:

something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary;

That proof isnt Japan started it and was never stated... now you are just demonstrating a willful lack of intelligence. You know exactly WHAT I stated in each instance and what you just said is not ANY of them...

But you are correct I have justified its use over and over.

[bankside]

Yes -- they could have allowed those Japanese observers, and some Russian ones, to see what the Bomb could do; they didn't need to incinerate tens of thousands.

I am not convinced that Japanese observers would have said anything to the emperor other than "Japan is strong and we will prevail. Nothing will touch the bloodline of Ameratsu and we are at your disposal, oh God Emperor."

[JayHawk]

I am not convinced that Japanese observers would have said anything to the emperor other than "Japan is strong and we will prevail. Nothing will touch the bloodline of Ameratsu and we are at your disposal, oh God Emperor."

As proof they saw what it could do on August 6 1945 and still chose not to surrender.

What does that tell you about bench test and their propensity to change minds in that era?

[JayHawk]

You find this an exceptionally difficult thing to do because it doesn't jive correctly with a preset mental image that the U.S. was the holy white knight of WWII. I'm completely comfortable with shades of gray because that's the reality of the world and if you deal in facts you're going to come to grips with the fact that good guys and bad guys are a kindergarten concept that doesn't translate well into talking about the geopolitical conflicts between nations very often.

I have absolutely no problem saying "the U.S.'s position in WWII was correct, but the nuking of two cities was very bad." And I'm unsure why that's something you're terrified of being able to say, unless you need to view it in a stark simplicity of good guy- bad guy.

I pointed out that the nuking of the two cities was unnecessary. Not that WWII didn't have lots of casualties, not that Japanese imperial troops were saints, or any other nonsense you and Jack Springer have thrown back as your "counterarguments."

Have a read back... I am the one who brought up the US travesties in the area before and during the war.... you are the one living in a alternate reality where Japan would surrender if they just knew... yet they saw a city destroyed... completely and utterly destroyed and still chose NOT to surrender... weird huh? Weird that reality trumps your speculation.

[xbuzzerx]

I am not convinced that Japanese observers would have said anything to the emperor other than "Japan is strong and we will prevail. Nothing will touch the bloodline of Ameratsu and we are at your disposal, oh God Emperor."

From a country already engaged in the attempt to seek a peace agreement, I would say this is just colorful speculation that doesn't actually reflect the practical reality of what, regardless of the posturing, was going on with the Japanese leadership in terms of recognizing that they had lost the war and that all they could do at that point was prolong it.

[JayHawk]

I pointed out that the nuking of the two cities was unnecessary. Not that WWII didn't have lots of casualties, not that Japanese imperial troops were saints, or any other nonsense you and Jack Springer have thrown back as your "counterarguments."

The posting of casualties and the damage done was to mentally get you into the mindset of what war and what the concept of collateral damage was back then... it had zero zilch nada to do with convincing you america was good or japan was bad.

- - - Updated - - -

From a country already engaged in the attempt to seek a peace agreement, I would say this is just colorful speculation that doesn't actually reflect the practical reality of what, regardless of the posturing, was going on with the Japanese leadership in terms of recognizing that they had lost the war and that all they could do at that point was prolong it.

Colorful speculation.... dude what part of they watched a city destroyed utterly and completely with a weapon that they did not even remotely possess and still they thought.... "Meh we can hold out" .... how is that confusing to you? How does that point to a speedy resolution....? Were we to die there for a few more decades to meet the need? You see Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are wars where we go in soft and play paddy cake...

[xbuzzerx]

Have a read back... I am the one who brought up the US travesties in the area before and during the war.... you are the one living in a alternate reality where Japan would surrender if they just knew... yet they saw a city destroyed... completely and utterly destroyed and still chose NOT to surrender... weird huh? Weird that reality trumps your speculation.

I never said "they would surrender if they knew", I said they were trying to surrender even before they knew. And yes, they were trying to seek some or any form of peace agreement above the bargaining level of "unconditional surrender."

You don't need an "unconditional surrender" to end a bloody war, especially when towards the very end the conditions being disagreed over were inconsequential and the primary face-saving one from the viewpoint of the Japanese leadership (not having their Emperor executed as a war criminal) was something that, after the unconditional surrender, we did not pursue anyway.

That was the point in the debate where you rattled off about how it was okay for the U.S. to demand nothing less because of x y and z. That doesn't change the fact that the war could have been ended earlier and that the nuking was unnecessary.

[JayHawk]

The unconditional had more to do with conquered lands prior to WWII than it did with the imperial line.

Nukes were necessary. Period.

[xbuzzerx]

The posting of casualties and the damage done was to mentally get you into the mindset of what war and what the concept of collateral damage was back then... it had zero zilch nada to do with convincing you america was good or japan was bad.

Correct. It's irrelevant to the question of necessity.

Colorful speculation.... dude what part of they watched a city destroyed utterly and completely with a weapon that they did not even remotely possess and still they thought.... "Meh we can hold out" .... how is that confusing to you? How does that point to a speedy resolution....? Were we to die there for a few more decades to meet the need? You see Iraq and Afghanistan? Those are wars where we go in soft and play paddy cake...

I think the leadership was in a state of complete shock much like Bush when he was told the country was under attack. The concept of "well we just lost an entire city to 1 bomb but we can still win" is an insane position you are entirely making up.

Japan at this time was huge about face. A delay on immediate surrender =/= "they knew they could still win." Yes, that is speculation. You could not possibly back up that their leadership thought this. I'm sure you could find one or two insane generals slapping his sword saying "we'll all die first" but since the government had already been trying to seek a peace agreement BEFORE the bombs it completely defies logic to say that after the first bomb they were more certain than before they could still win.

Yes, your position is speculation and based on nothing at this point.

[bankside]

As proof they saw what it could do on August 6 1945 and still chose not to surrender.

What does that tell you about bench test and their propensity to change minds in that era?

For a culture where embarrassment is worse than death, and the emperor's embarrassment is worse than self-genocide...

I would even accept evidence, if there were any,that a Japanese envoy would have let it be known that "Dropping the bomb would create conditions that would allow the Emperor to make an honourable gesture to those who will be sacrificed, and thus withdraw from the war."

Japan could never surrender while it could still stand. The people would not have believed it, never mind understood.

[xbuzzerx]

The unconditional had more to do with conquered lands prior to WWII than it did with the imperial line.

Nukes were necessary. Period.

That is your opinion for which you offer no actually hard facts. I disagree with it.

[xbuzzerx]

For a culture where embarrassment is worse than death, and the emperor's embarrassment is worse than self-genocide...

I would even accept evidence, if there were any,that a Japanese envoy would have let it be known that "Dropping the bomb would create conditions that would allow the Emperor to make an honourable gesture to those who will be sacrificed, and thus withdraw from the war."

Japan could never surrender while it could still stand. The people would not have believed it, never mind understood.

That Japan could never accept a humiliating unconditional surrender before the bombs is a point I agree with. However bear in mind that an important negotiating point to the leadership was not having their Emperor paraded off in American streets and executed because of what it would do to the morale of the people-- something which General MacArthur completely understood and appreciated when he took over the occupation, and the Emperor was never tried for war crimes. The position offered in this thread that the Japanese would never have surrendered any of their wartime possessions in Southeast Asia (which they'd already lost) unless we nuked them is, as far as I can tell, entirely made up on the spot here as the newest in a long line of contrived arguments. It was not the reasoning given by the Allied leadership involved in the decision to nuke the cities, so it's just being what-iff'd here.

That Japan was completely and utterly hellbent on still winning the war and not seeking a peace agreement until nuked is factually incorrect.

[bankside]

From a country already engaged in the attempt to seek a peace agreement, I would say this is just colorful speculation that doesn't actually reflect the practical reality of what, regardless of the posturing, was going on with the Japanese leadership in terms of recognizing that they had lost the war and that all they could do at that point was prolong it.

Their thinking was more like "We are utterly defeated and only death is ahead. If only we could persuade the Americans to graciously surrender then we could stop fighting, and there might be a spark of hope for our broken country."

Followed by "Otherwise it's better if they just finish us off."

[JayHawk]

That Japan could never accept a humiliating unconditional surrender before the bombs is a point I agree with. However bear in mind that an important negotiating point to the leadership was not having their Emperor paraded off in American streets and executed because of what it would do to the morale of the people-- something which General MacArthur completely understood and appreciated when he took over the occupation, and the Emperor was never tried for war crimes. The position offered in this thread that the Japanese would never have surrendered any of their wartime possessions in Southeast Asia (which they'd already lost) unless we nuked them is, as far as I can tell, entirely made up on the spot here as the newest in a long line of contrived arguments. It was not the reasoning given by the Allied leadership involved in the decision to nuke the cities, so it's just being what-iff'd here.

That Japan was completely and utterly hellbent on still winning the war and not seeking a peace agreement until nuked is factually incorrect.

Well game over... now we all agree.


Ooops you had to then go and contradict yourself...

[xbuzzerx]

Their thinking was more like "We are utterly defeated and only death is ahead. If only we could persuade the Americans to graciously surrender then we could stop fighting, and there might be a spark of hope for our broken country."

Followed by "Otherwise it's better if they just finish us off."

If you're a time travelling mind reader, okay. Otherwise I have to go with the fact that they were seeking "acceptable peace terms" through Italy for quite some time before the bombs, and that several of the conditions argued upon were things we did not demand post-surrender any how.

[JayHawk]

If you're a time travelling mind reader, okay. Otherwise I have to go with the fact that they were seeking "acceptable peace terms" through Italy for quite some time before the bombs, and that several of the conditions argued upon were things we did not demand post-surrender any how.

They were going through the Swiss and the Vatican... Italy was involved in the war on the convincingly losing side and in no state to negotiate anything.

[xbuzzerx]

Well game over... now we all agree.


Ooops you had to then go and contradict yourself...

I didn't contradict myself at all. You are just refusing to acknowledge that unconditional surrender is not the sole method to end any conflict on earth.