- 18 Aug 2012 12:02
#14034925
But of course, the production of Kaiten suicide torpedos, Shinyo suicide boats, type A to C Mini subs & the modification of aircraft to be used in Kamikaze missions and the 200,000 regular and militia troops in the area were of no importance. The USA just wanted to kill a lot of Japanese babies now isn't that right?
I guess you still don't know or are conveniently ignoring the fact that the conventional bombing campaign against Japan began in mid 1944 via large B-29 raids. Some facts:
•Eight raids by 250 B-29s delivers as much destructive force as a FatMan Nagasaki bomb,
•Six raids by 250 B-29s equal the destructive force of the Hiroshima bomb.
•In late 1944 The Oppenheimer Commission suggested that Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata be spared B-29 attacks. Oppenheimer and Groves wanted intact cities to destroy instantly as a way of compelling the Japanese to surrender. Do you think the Japanese would have given a shit about an abandoned city that had already been flattened by conventional bombing? Besides that the Japanese understood and had no special fear of conventional bombing as they had done much of it to civilian populations themselves.
2) Ridiculous! The objective was to eliminate military/industrial capability prior to invasion and 'possibly' get the Japanese to throw in the towel. The notion that the atomic bombs would bring about Japan's surrender was the subject of much debate and even ridicule by the Military. The Navy favored blockade, The Army & The USMC favored invasion, The United States Army Air Force favored conventional strategic bombing with High explosive and Incendiary bombs centered on densely populated urban areas. Reference the Tokyo raid AKA 'Operation Meetinghouse' that killed nearly as many people as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
3)Rediculous! Kyoto was removed from all target lists by Henry L. Stimson from 1943 onward. Kyoto was never in play!
4)Rediculous! This is where your childish anti Americanism makes you appear to be something of a clown. For the Japanese the destruction of Kyoto would have been analogous to the destruction of the Vatican or Mecca. Its destruction would have done nothing except increase Japanese determination to fight to the last man. Only killing the Emperor would have done more to strengthen their will to resist. Your notion that Americans, "cared more about ancient temples than Japanese children," is in point of fact 'retarded'. I have never heard that argument before so I suspect that it is entirely your concoction. There never has been an argument on that point. You created it to express your hatred of the USA and to mask your almost complete lack of knowledge of this subject.
Its OK to hate the USA, but you should do it for the right reasons and support your opinions with facts not contrivance. You would have been better off claiming that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and strategic bombing against Japan were not entirely responsible for Japan's surrender. For that there are mountains of evidence. As the thought permanently losing Hokaido Island to the Soviets for the Japanese was too horrible to contemplate. Remember the Soviets invaded Manchuria three days after Hiroshima on the day that Nagasaki was Atom Bombed 9 Aug 1945.
Eran, I suggest you crack open a few books on the subject...[u]unless you are content to spray nonsense.
Eran wrote:What I have done is point out that the logic that allows harming civilians in war is the same logic as the one used by terrorists. My point in doing so was to show that killing civilians in war is as bad as terrorism. In other words, I am condemning both, rather than excusing either.What you have not done is prove your point. First off, intentionally targeting and blowing up a grade school or tossing a heavy pipe bomb charged with TNT and hex nuts packed with rat poison into a coffee shop full of students is not at all similar to attacking a military/industrial target where civilians will be killed. One very obvious reason is 'choice'. The terrorist chooses to attack a soft target...the more horrific the better. But collateral damage caused by an attack on a military/industrial target is most often a negative consequence of the action. Then of course there is Truman's warning of total ruin from the Air prior to Hiroshima and the Millions of leaflets dropped over Japan warning then to evacuate their cities after Hiroshima.
Eran wrote:Xbow wrote:Its hilarious and somewhat lamentable that you failed to read the entire entry and are now attempting to use that out of context sentence as support for your absurd notion that Nagasaki was not a valuable military target.
Nagasaki was also an incredibly valuable military target.
Wikipedia wrote:
Nagasaki had never been subjected to large-scale bombing prior to the explosion of a nuclear weapon there.
But of course, the production of Kaiten suicide torpedos, Shinyo suicide boats, type A to C Mini subs & the modification of aircraft to be used in Kamikaze missions and the 200,000 regular and militia troops in the area were of no importance. The USA just wanted to kill a lot of Japanese babies now isn't that right?
I guess you still don't know or are conveniently ignoring the fact that the conventional bombing campaign against Japan began in mid 1944 via large B-29 raids. Some facts:
•Eight raids by 250 B-29s delivers as much destructive force as a FatMan Nagasaki bomb,
•Six raids by 250 B-29s equal the destructive force of the Hiroshima bomb.
•In late 1944 The Oppenheimer Commission suggested that Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura, Nagasaki, and Niigata be spared B-29 attacks. Oppenheimer and Groves wanted intact cities to destroy instantly as a way of compelling the Japanese to surrender. Do you think the Japanese would have given a shit about an abandoned city that had already been flattened by conventional bombing? Besides that the Japanese understood and had no special fear of conventional bombing as they had done much of it to civilian populations themselves.
Eran wrote:1) The American intention was to bring Japan to its knees quickly, and force its capitulation.1) No one disputes this, least of all me.
2) Not to damage its longer-term military capacity.
3) The Americans did strike a balance in hitting Nagasaki rather than Kyoto.
4) Arguably, they cared more about ancient temples than above Japanese children.
2) Ridiculous! The objective was to eliminate military/industrial capability prior to invasion and 'possibly' get the Japanese to throw in the towel. The notion that the atomic bombs would bring about Japan's surrender was the subject of much debate and even ridicule by the Military. The Navy favored blockade, The Army & The USMC favored invasion, The United States Army Air Force favored conventional strategic bombing with High explosive and Incendiary bombs centered on densely populated urban areas. Reference the Tokyo raid AKA 'Operation Meetinghouse' that killed nearly as many people as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
3)Rediculous! Kyoto was removed from all target lists by Henry L. Stimson from 1943 onward. Kyoto was never in play!
4)Rediculous! This is where your childish anti Americanism makes you appear to be something of a clown. For the Japanese the destruction of Kyoto would have been analogous to the destruction of the Vatican or Mecca. Its destruction would have done nothing except increase Japanese determination to fight to the last man. Only killing the Emperor would have done more to strengthen their will to resist. Your notion that Americans, "cared more about ancient temples than Japanese children," is in point of fact 'retarded'. I have never heard that argument before so I suspect that it is entirely your concoction. There never has been an argument on that point. You created it to express your hatred of the USA and to mask your almost complete lack of knowledge of this subject.
Its OK to hate the USA, but you should do it for the right reasons and support your opinions with facts not contrivance. You would have been better off claiming that Hiroshima, Nagasaki and strategic bombing against Japan were not entirely responsible for Japan's surrender. For that there are mountains of evidence. As the thought permanently losing Hokaido Island to the Soviets for the Japanese was too horrible to contemplate. Remember the Soviets invaded Manchuria three days after Hiroshima on the day that Nagasaki was Atom Bombed 9 Aug 1945.
Wiki wrote:Unbeknownst to the Americans, the Soviets were preparing to follow up their invasions of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands with an invasion of the weakly defended island of Hokkaidō by the end of August, which would have put pressure on the Allies to do something sooner than November. On August 15, the Japanese agreed to surrender, rendering the whole question of invasion moot
Eran, I suggest you crack open a few books on the subject...[u]unless you are content to spray nonsense.
KMA