Son of Pilot Who Dropped A-Bomb Opposes, - Page 4

Ducimus · 08-05-10, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Well, it really wouldn't be such a big deal if, as Ducimus pointed out, we were dealing with a country that acknowledged it's attrocities committed against a multitude of peoples and nations.

Here's a post i made awhie ago

Quote:

Just as an aside, what got me looking more closely at japanese warcrimes was when i was doing research for the bungo pete/akikaze mod in TM.

I ran accross this page:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan...s_pacific.html

Primarly because an incident took place called "THE 'AKIKAZE' EXECUTIONS". Naturally it peaked my curiosity. Not wanting to take a obscure user page at face value, i started googleing some of the incidents described on that page, and they all seem to have really occured.

If all incident's listed are correct ( cursory searching leads me to think they are), Japan has a lot to answer for. Scuse me while i scoff at the idea of my country apologizing to the unapologetic.

Oberon · 08-05-10, 05:40 PM

To be honest...I do ponder if Soviet and American generals and politicians would have been so reluctant to use a nuclear weapon in action had they not used two on Japan already and seen the destruction that they caused.
The two bombs on Japan could well have prevented several being used on China during the Korean war. After all, no-one really believes in the destructive force of something until they witness it for themselves in action.

Platapus · 08-05-10, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

To be honest...I do ponder if Soviet and American generals and politicians would have been so reluctant to use a nuclear weapon in action had they not used two on Japan already and seen the destruction that they caused.
The two bombs on Japan could well have prevented several being used on China during the Korean war. After all, no-one really believes in the destructive force of something until they witness it for themselves in action.

A most interesting comment. There was consideration for the US to "drop" the first nuclear weapon on an island as a show of capability. This was not adopted for several reasons, both logical and emotional.

1. There was not enough 235U for a second uranium device
2. Implosion construction was still pretty new and uncertain. This is why the PU device was equipped with contact single point ignition fuses as a back up so that there would be "some" explosion, and the device would be destroyed to prevent examination.
3. It would be a lot easier to over look a "dud" if it were dropped in combat, then if it were part of an advertised and witnessed "demonstration".

But your comment is most interesting to consider. Did we, in fact, destroy two cities in order to save the world? hmmmm

heartc · 08-05-10, 06:20 PM

Unit 731.

And in other news: Rape of Nanking.

Etc.

Now, do the deaths and murder of those innocent people justify the deaths of yet another thousands of innocents on the Japanese side? No they don't. The death of innocent people can naturally not be "justified". But war itself is not just. I don't know war because I've never been to one, but I think it is safe to say that by its nature, it is the opposite of justice, decency, compassion and sympathy. It is when these things end, that war starts.
So, while the death of tens of thousands of people in 2 nuclear attacks is not "just" in any event, the above examples show what kind of enemy the US and Allied Forces were up against in the Pacific as well. And in light of the timid recognition of their own horrible atrocities, I would have a hard time with the Japanese demanding an apology for the nuclear attacks.

Either everybody apologizes to everybody for any wrongdoing that might have happened (well, aside from waging war on one another in the first place), or better, gives it a rest.

The only sincere apology / real peace settlement can only be between individuals, anyway. Most everything else is just politics.

nikimcbee · 08-05-10, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

It's not the first time that's happened you Drama Queen!

Give that man a Glenn Beck gold coin!

mookiemookie · 08-05-10, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Give that man a Glenn Beck gold coin!

nikimcbee · 08-05-10, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

*grabs popcorn for the inevitable 'bomb shouldn't have been dropped' argument*

This. On a side note, I haven't met any WW2 vets that didn't mind dropping the bomb.

Ducimus · 08-05-10, 08:29 PM

Yup, the effects of dropping those bombs have had far reaching consequences. The radiation must have twisted their gene pool.

Gerald · 08-06-10, 07:18 AM

mayor seeks disarmament on A-bomb 65th anniversary.HIROSHIMA, Japan (AP) — A U.S. representative participated for the first time Friday in Japan's annual commemoration of the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima, in a 65th anniversary event that organizers hope will bolster global efforts toward nuclear disarmament.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08...h-anniversary/

Note:Published August 06, 2010

Oberon · 08-06-10, 07:38 AM

Another little thought that ran through my mind last night as I went to bed, the Japanese economic miracle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...onomic_miracle

Now...surely if Japan had not surrendered in the manner that it did, this economic miracle would never have occured and Japan would not be the nation it is today, a true economic powerhouse and technological hotzone.
Japan lost two cities, and when I say lost, I mean temporarily because both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today, however if the invasion had gone ahead, just about every city would have been firebombed into oblivion, the atomic bombs would have been dropped and possibly in greater numbers than just two, and the sheer amount of casualties incurred would have swung US public opinion further against the Japanese and discouraged the post-war investment that the US poured into Japan in reality, it could well be that Japan would wind up facing some kind of Versailles type reparations to help fix the US manpower drain that would have happened.
Then there's the Soviets, eagerly eating any form of territory they could get their hands on, perhaps Japan would have found itself in two pieces like Germany? What would that have done to the economic powerhouse that Japan would become? Would Japan have become like Korea?

There's lots of what-ifs in this scenario...but when one looks at Japan today, and one thinks of what could have been...two cities seems a small price to pay.

frau kaleun · 08-06-10, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

There's lots of what-ifs in this scenario...but when one looks at Japan today, and one thinks of what could have been...two cities seems a small price to pay.

Like anything it's a matter of perspective. No ill wind that doesn't blow someone some good, etc., which doesn't mitigate how awful the storm is for those who are destroyed by it.

It's no different than saying that 50,000+ casualties in Normandy was a small price to pay for making a successful assault on Fortress Europa; a small price perhaps in terms of the war as a whole and what was at stake, but a huge price for those who actually paid it, as such things inevitably are.

Not suggesting that you aren't savvy or thoughtful enough to be very much aware of this - just wanted to see it said.

joegrundman · 08-06-10, 08:15 AM

i've even met some japanese who, in their own words, were glad the a-bombs were used. This was on the grounds that the implacable and suicidal mentality of many in senior positions at the time, without the a-bomb shock, meant the war wouldn't have stopped until japan was ground to dust.

And the Japanese are, as a whole, very respectful and appreciative of the US military, and the remarkable generosity of spirit shown by the US after the war ended.

Still, I don't fully understand the American obsession with the evil of Pearl Harbor, and it's self-evident moral equivalence with the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians (including conventional firestorms). Tater's disingenuous comments notwithstanding.

PH was a perfectly valid military target by anyone's yardstick, delivered with an approximately contemporaneous formal declaration of war. When was the last time the US bothered with a formal declaration of war before attacking military or civilian targets? And are you saying that had Japan atom bombed a US city too, killing say 100,000 civilians, you'd be au fait with that, as being of the same kind of moral outrage as the attack on a military target?

And when some mention the Japanese burying it's head in the sand regarding the past. Even if true, it's hardly a unique phenomenon. It is more the case that Germany's full on confrontation with its past is the unusual event.

Gerald · 08-06-10, 11:35 AM

official appearance at the memorial, as well as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Altogether, 74 nations were represented.China, which sent a low-ranking official in 2008, was not participating. Officials said Beijing did not give a reason.
China are busy with other activities, so this is certainly a low priority for them.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews

Safe-Keeper · 08-06-10, 11:39 AM

There are no words in the English language to describe the evil behind this unforgivable atrocity. Look at this! 100 000 casualties!

...oh, wait, cough, my bad, that's Manila, not an a-bomb. But look here!

...wait, that's Dresden. Here we go!

...whoops, sorry, wrong again, that's Berlin. What about this?

...nope, that's Stalingrad.

Er, you were saying?

Seriously, though, why are we even discussing this? We're talking about a bomb that prevented an invasion and saved countless lives. Compared to the other butchering going on during WWII, this was nothing out of the ordinary, except, of course, that, say, the Battle of Manila or bombing of Dresden didn't end the war and spare millions of lives.

I wager that the only reason people care is that they used atomic bombs. Had they levelled Hiroshima and Nagasaki with incendiary bombs, no one would've cared less.

Ducimus · 08-06-10, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joegrundman

i

Still, I don't fully understand the American obsession with the evil of Pearl Harbor,

PH was a perfectly valid military target by anyone's yardstick, delivered with an approximately contemporaneous formal declaration of war. When was the last time the US bothered with a formal declaration of war before attacking military or civilian targets?

Here's the thing about Pearl Harbor, as far as i'm able to explain.

1.) As far as i know, the Japanese gave no indication that diplomacy wasn't working. They just attacked out of nowhere. While militarily sound, the thing is, the US has never attacked like this. If our government is upset with a country, it announces it first. Desert shield in the first gulf war being an obvious example. Even in the 2nd gulf war, im pretty sure Bush said something along the lines of "Cooperate, or else." (the whole harboring terrorist speech, nevermind the UN weapons inspection they snubbed off) The fact that Japan gave first indication that diplomacy failed after the fact (Or rather, by the attack itself), IS a really big deal.

2.) The attack happened on American soil. We as a people are NOT used to this idea. It's only happened twice ( if you don't count the war of 1812 and the brits burning the white house..errr executive mansion.), Dec 7, and Sept 11.

Both points have left a scar.

08-05-10, 06:20 PM	#49
heartc Samurai Navy Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Munich Posts: 562 Downloads: 71 Uploads: 0	Unit 731. And in other news: Rape of Nanking. Etc. Now, do the deaths and murder of those innocent people justify the deaths of yet another thousands of innocents on the Japanese side? No they don't. The death of innocent people can naturally not be "justified". But war itself is not just. I don't know war because I've never been to one, but I think it is safe to say that by its nature, it is the opposite of justice, decency, compassion and sympathy. It is when these things end, that war starts. So, while the death of tens of thousands of people in 2 nuclear attacks is not "just" in any event, the above examples show what kind of enemy the US and Allied Forces were up against in the Pacific as well. And in light of the timid recognition of their own horrible atrocities, I would have a hard time with the Japanese demanding an apology for the nuclear attacks. Either everybody apologizes to everybody for any wrongdoing that might have happened (well, aside from waging war on one another in the first place), or better, gives it a rest. The only sincere apology / real peace settlement can only be between individuals, anyway. Most everything else is just politics. __________________

08-06-10, 07:18 AM	#54
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	US joins Hiroshima ceremony for 1st time, mayor seeks disarmament on A-bomb 65th anniversary.HIROSHIMA, Japan (AP) — A U.S. representative participated for the first time Friday in Japan's annual commemoration of the American atomic bombing of Hiroshima, in a 65th anniversary event that organizers hope will bolster global efforts toward nuclear disarmament. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08...h-anniversary/ Note:Published August 06, 2010 __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

08-06-10, 08:15 AM	#57
joegrundman Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,689 Downloads: 34 Uploads: 0	i've even met some japanese who, in their own words, were glad the a-bombs were used. This was on the grounds that the implacable and suicidal mentality of many in senior positions at the time, without the a-bomb shock, meant the war wouldn't have stopped until japan was ground to dust. And the Japanese are, as a whole, very respectful and appreciative of the US military, and the remarkable generosity of spirit shown by the US after the war ended. Still, I don't fully understand the American obsession with the evil of Pearl Harbor, and it's self-evident moral equivalence with the incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians (including conventional firestorms). Tater's disingenuous comments notwithstanding. PH was a perfectly valid military target by anyone's yardstick, delivered with an approximately contemporaneous formal declaration of war. When was the last time the US bothered with a formal declaration of war before attacking military or civilian targets? And are you saying that had Japan atom bombed a US city too, killing say 100,000 civilians, you'd be au fait with that, as being of the same kind of moral outrage as the attack on a military target? And when some mention the Japanese burying it's head in the sand regarding the past. Even if true, it's hardly a unique phenomenon. It is more the case that Germany's full on confrontation with its past is the unusual event. __________________ "Enemy submarines are to be called U-Boats. The term submarine is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs." Winston Churchill

08-06-10, 11:35 AM	#58
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	Along with the U.S., Britain and France also made their first official appearance at the memorial, as well as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Altogether, 74 nations were represented.China, which sent a low-ranking official in 2008, was not participating. Officials said Beijing did not give a reason. China are busy with other activities, so this is certainly a low priority for them. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...est=latestnews __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie Last edited by Gerald; 08-06-10 at 12:01 PM.

08-06-10, 11:39 AM	#59
Safe-Keeper Ocean Warrior Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Norway Posts: 3,234 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	There are no words in the English language to describe the evil behind this unforgivable atrocity. Look at this! 100 000 casualties! ...oh, wait, cough, my bad, that's Manila, not an a-bomb. But look here! ...wait, that's Dresden. Here we go! ...whoops, sorry, wrong again, that's Berlin. What about this? ...nope, that's Stalingrad. Er, you were saying? Seriously, though, why are we even discussing this? We're talking about a bomb that prevented an invasion and saved countless lives. Compared to the other butchering going on during WWII, this was nothing out of the ordinary, except, of course, that, say, the Battle of Manila or bombing of Dresden didn't end the war and spare millions of lives. I wager that the only reason people care is that they used atomic bombs. Had they levelled Hiroshima and Nagasaki with incendiary bombs, no one would've cared less. __________________ First Strike Mod tester. Hardcore sub skipper.

08-05-10, 05:40 PM	#47
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	To be honest...I do ponder if Soviet and American generals and politicians would have been so reluctant to use a nuclear weapon in action had they not used two on Japan already and seen the destruction that they caused. The two bombs on Japan could well have prevented several being used on China during the Korean war. After all, no-one really believes in the destructive force of something until they witness it for themselves in action.

08-05-10, 08:29 PM	#53
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	Yup, the effects of dropping those bombs have had far reaching consequences. The radiation must have twisted their gene pool.

08-06-10, 07:38 AM	#55
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	Another little thought that ran through my mind last night as I went to bed, the Japanese economic miracle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanes...onomic_miracle Now...surely if Japan had not surrendered in the manner that it did, this economic miracle would never have occured and Japan would not be the nation it is today, a true economic powerhouse and technological hotzone. Japan lost two cities, and when I say lost, I mean temporarily because both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities today, however if the invasion had gone ahead, just about every city would have been firebombed into oblivion, the atomic bombs would have been dropped and possibly in greater numbers than just two, and the sheer amount of casualties incurred would have swung US public opinion further against the Japanese and discouraged the post-war investment that the US poured into Japan in reality, it could well be that Japan would wind up facing some kind of Versailles type reparations to help fix the US manpower drain that would have happened. Then there's the Soviets, eagerly eating any form of territory they could get their hands on, perhaps Japan would have found itself in two pieces like Germany? What would that have done to the economic powerhouse that Japan would become? Would Japan have become like Korea? There's lots of what-ifs in this scenario...but when one looks at Japan today, and one thinks of what could have been...two cities seems a small price to pay.