|
Moridin920 posted:The only condition of their surrender was they got to keep their emperor, which the USA let them do anyway in the end so idk what your point is. You are still missing the point. Without the bombings, the war would have, without question, continued. Our options at that point would be to continue bombing or to perform a land invasion. Maybe take a couple of college courses on WW2 instead of relying on the internet for your information. Also maybe read Hiroshima in History because it goes into far greater detail about the hows and whys of the atomic bombings and what the alternative scenarios would have been than I feel like doing.
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
Cubey posted:You are still missing the point. Without the bombings, the war would have, without question, continued. Our options at that point would be to continue bombing or to perform a land invasion. Bro... did you miss the quotes from all the commanding generals and admirals in charge of the Pacific theater stating across the board that the war without question was over? That Truman was aware all that was required for the Japanese to accept peace was letting them keep their emperor for weeks before he made his ultimatum? That with or without the bomb the war would have lasted another couple weeks at most? They had no food. They had no oil. They had no munitions. They had no supplies to make more, and all the factories that would have made them were destroyed. Like the alternative scenarios suck yeah but my point is it's a false dilemma. No one thought we needed to ground invade Japan to win. The Japanese capacity for war was so utterly destroyed that the Air Force ran out of targets to bomb and just started bombing wooden pedestrian bridges. The war was over. Just because some psychos were ready to retreat to the caves and throw rocks doesn't mean poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Bro... Read Hiroshima in History and stop posting about this until you do.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Cubey posted:Read Hiroshima in History and stop posting about this until you do. If I read it will you address all the quotes by the commanding officers in the pacific theater stating unequivocally that they thought the bomb was completely unnecessary from a military standpoint? Moridin920 fucked around with this message at 20:57 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Cubey posted:Read Hiroshima in History and stop posting about this until you do. this author says
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:If I read it will you address all the quotes by the commanding officers in the pacific theater stating unequivocally that they thought the bomb was completely unnecessary? That book does a better job at this than I ever could because it's written by someone who is a far, far greater historian than you or I could ever hope to be;. Hence why you should just read it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Cubey posted:That book does a better job at this than I ever could because it's written by someone who is a far, far greater historian than you or I could ever hope to be;. Hence why you should just read it. Alright I'll read it. I already skimmed a summary though and I'll say a) I'm interested but b) the US had no way of knowing the Japanese intent to surrender wasn't legit (assuming the book's premise is right) or that no one who had authority to surrender was willing, therefore the moral choice of dropping the bomb from the US perspective is unaffected.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:Alright I'll read it. It's admittedly been a good 4 years since I read it so I can't remember the specifics beyond the fact that I used to be on board to 'nuking Japan was bad and wrong' until I read it. I do remember that the book goes into some detail about the feelings of US commanders regarding the bombings, and many of them were not wholly against it until after the fact (usually some years after the fact), likely because nobody but the nuclear scientists who were working on the bomb could possibly have imagined the horrors it would bring. An earlier writing from him I think goes into this same thing even further, unless I've conflated the two in my mind.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
US military exposed 60,000 of it's own troops to poisonous chemicalsquote:According to a report published by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) last year, approximately 60,000 military personnel were used as human subjects in the 1940's to test two chemical agents, mustard gas and lewisite. Most of these subjects were not informed of the nature of the experiments and never received medical followup after their participation in the research. Additionally, some of these human subjects were threatened with imprisonment at Fort Leavenworth if they discussed these experiments with anyone, including their wives, parents, and family doctors. For decades, the Pentagon denied that the research had taken place, resulting in decades of suffering for many veterans who became ill after the secret testing. According to the 1993 IOM report, such denial by the DOD continues: "This committee discovered that an atmosphere of secrecy still exists to some extent regarding the WWII testing programs. Although many documents pertaining to the WWII testing programs were declassified shortly after the war ended, others were not."
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
What's your opinion of the plan that some military brass put forward to bomb a relatively uninhabited area outside of Tokyo as a demonstration of what the nuke could do in attempt to make them realize the futility of the situation vs actually bombing a city first? iirc they wanted to detonate it over some forest and then the Japanese could see the trees blow away like matchsticks and realize what was up. ProperCoochie posted:US military exposed 60,000 of it's own troops to poisonous chemicals On this vein, apparently the depleted uranium shells we've been using are having negative health effects for both the locals and our soldiers but the military is kind of just going 'nope not true, don't need to use radiation safety equipment to load munitions.'
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:What's your opinion of the plan that some military brass put forward to bomb a relatively uninhabited area outside of Tokyo as a demonstration of what the nuke could do in attempt to make them realize the futility of the situation vs actually bombing a city first? In the wake of Hiroshima, Japanese leaders correctly predicted that we could only build one or two more bombs (we could build two more after the first). Again, even after Hiroshima was leveled, most of those in power reacted with 'well if they can only build a couple more of them, we can just deal with it'. Detonating one outside of a city would have accomplished even less than detonating it over Hiroshima did. Also, if the theory that we only used the bomb to scare the USSR was true, then yeah, we probably would have just done it over a forest. The USSR knew the potential of the bomb, so knowing we'd built and detonated one would have been enough regardless of where we used it. DEEP STATE PLOT fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Cubey posted:You are still missing the point. Without the bombings, the war would have, without question, continued. Our options at that point would be to continue bombing or to perform a land invasion. gently caress Off Grandpa Cubey posted:Read Hiroshima in History and stop posting about this until you do. gently caress Off Grandpa Cubey posted:That book does a better job at this than I ever could because it's written by someone who is a far, far greater historian than you or I could ever hope to be;. Hence why you should just read it. gently caress Off Grandpa Cubey posted:It's admittedly been a good 4 years since I read it so I can't remember the specifics beyond the fact that I used to be on board to 'nuking Japan was bad and wrong' until I read it. I do remember that the book goes into some detail about the feelings of US commanders regarding the bombings, and many of them were not wholly against it until after the fact (usually some years after the fact), likely because nobody but the nuclear scientists who were working on the bomb could possibly have imagined the horrors it would bring. An earlier writing from him I think goes into this same thing even further, unless I've conflated the two in my mind. gently caress Off Grandpa Cubey posted:In the wake of Hiroshima, Japanese leaders correctly predicted that we could only build one or two more bombs (we could build two more after the first). Again, even after Hiroshima was leveled, most of those in power reacted with 'well if they can only build a couple more of them, we can just deal with it'. Detonating one outside of a city would have accomplished even less than detonating it over Hiroshima did. gently caress Off Grandpa
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
facebook jihad posted:the Nazis had UFOs and Hitler is living on a moon base to this day. Hell even other countries got in on the action after the war, just look up the Avrocar.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
That gbs is actually good op
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Cubey posted:In the wake of Hiroshima, Japanese leaders correctly predicted that we could only build one or two more bombs (we could build two more after the first). Again, even after Hiroshima was leveled, most of those in power reacted with 'well if they can only build a couple more of them, we can just deal with it'. Detonating one outside of a city would have accomplished even less than detonating it over Hiroshima did. Sorry, I'm an uneducated shitlord. Why wasn't the bomb dropped over, like, a military base, and not a city? Wouldn't it have the same "holy poo poo!" effect without killing a bunch of civilian shits? I don't get why it was dropped on a literal city and that's probably why I dont't post in D&D
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
i dont know if this really counts as a conspiracy theory but imo america was the aggressor in the cold war
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 09:37
|
|
