| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
10 |
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
Barry I believe Wiki states that
The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
My father was a Marine in the 4th. Division. You can google 'em. He might not have been around to father me if those bombs weren't dropped.
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
You have already been informed that you can not believe anything the >gov says. |
I guess I'll have to see what the scientists working for the nuclear industry have to say. I'm sure they're impartial. 
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by SFandH
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
You have already been informed that you can not believe anything the >gov says. |
I guess I'll have to see what the scientists working for the nuclear industry have to say. I'm sure they're impartial. |
Nahhh Just tune into the "right" radio station. You can get it first hand there!
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
Barry I believe Wiki states that
The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated. |
Yes it does say that in the intro, but it then goes on to discuss the "official" reasons for the bombings, leaving it up to you to decide what you
think is right. There are strong points given in support of the bombings, and what I think are highly speculative and somewhat spurious points given
against it. Taking into consideration that Wiki is a mildly left-leaning organization, I think it is all worth considering and reading about.
Disclaimer: As previously mentioned on NOMADS, I am very biased as my Uncle was the Weaponeer (in charge of the bomb) on the Nagasaki run, and in
charge of the bomb-dropping on that flight along with Sweeney.
On Edit: My uncle (my Dad's brother) has written a 523 page book on that subject, and many other endeavors he was involved in while with the US
Navy, but it was never generally published for public consumption as it was solely written so his kids, grandkids and relatives would know his
history. Along with others, he represented the US Navy in the "Manhattan Project" for the duration of the Project.
I have a copy of the book and it is incredibly well written, and should have been published for public consumption, IMO.
Barry
[Edited on 5-12-2014 by Barry A.]
|
|
|
rts551
Elite Nomad
Posts: 6699
Registered: 9-5-2003
Member Is Offline
|
|
And at the end of the article states
"Many U.S. military leaders as well as ex-president Herbert Hoover, argued that it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing
campaign, and therefore militarily unnecessary.[260] This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding
redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. As the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet
Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. "The Soviet entry into the war", noted Japanese
historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan
could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"."
So maybe there is something to the statement that we were sending a message to the Soviets. and Barry, has your bias ever influenced your reading,
ability for critical thinking, and statements on BN?
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
Barry I believe Wiki states that
The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated. |
Yes it does say that in the intro, but it then goes on to discuss the "official" reasons for the bombings, leaving it up to you to decide what you
think is right. There are strong points given in support of the bombings, and what I think are highly speculative and somewhat spurious points given
against it. Taking into consideration that Wiki is a mildly left-leaning organization, I think it is all worth considering and reading about.
Disclaimer: As previously mentioned on NOMADS, I am very biased as my Uncle was the Weaponeer (in charge of the bomb) on the Nagasaki run, and in
charge of the bomb-dropping on that flight along with Sweeney.
Barry |
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
And at the end of the article states
"Many U.S. military leaders as well as ex-president Herbert Hoover, argued that it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing
campaign, and therefore militarily unnecessary.[260] This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding
redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. As the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet
Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. "The Soviet entry into the war", noted Japanese
historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan
could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"."
So maybe there is something to the statement that we were sending a message to the Soviets. and Barry, has your bias ever influenced your reading,
ability for critical thinking, and statements on BN?
| Quote: | Originally posted by Barry A.
| Quote: | Originally posted by rts551
Barry I believe Wiki states that
The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated. |
Yes it does say that in the intro, but it then goes on to discuss the "official" reasons for the bombings, leaving it up to you to decide what you
think is right. There are strong points given in support of the bombings, and what I think are highly speculative and somewhat spurious points given
against it. Taking into consideration that Wiki is a mildly left-leaning organization, I think it is all worth considering and reading about.
Disclaimer: As previously mentioned on NOMADS, I am very biased as my Uncle was the Weaponeer (in charge of the bomb) on the Nagasaki run, and in
charge of the bomb-dropping on that flight along with Sweeney.
Barry |
|
In response to your question-------Yes, I am pretty sure it has biased me, as I said in my Edit. Who really knows how that plays out in my OTHER
statements on NOMADS, but it sure is part of my past so it is reasonable to think it does. My Family is full of Naval Officer's, and I attended the
Naval Academy-------it is part of who I am. I did not graduate from the USNA as I am "math-challenged" (so I resigned) which is not conducive to
being an Engineer, as was the requirement back then. (1958 and '59)
Barry
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
CRITICAL THINKING
Since "critical thinking" is often brought up by some on this board, and in the previous posts again, I looked it up.
Very complicated subject, and not that easy to define. But after reading several different definitions, I settled in on this one as my favorite:
"Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous
standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to
overcome our native egocentrism and socio-centrism."
(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)
Based on that, I think of myself as approaching "Critical Thinking", but often fall short, I am sure.
Perhaps this explains to JoeJustJoe why I appear to be talking about "self" so often.
Barry
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
The arguments re:dropping the bomb will continue. There is no absolute. But, Wikipedia is the last place I would look for any credible information,
other than dates, trivia, etc. It is not a research organization nor an academic organization.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
They can argue and reargue about it as much as they want. The fact that no nation has ever dropped nuclear bombs on civilians again, the fact that
nations have signed non profileration treaties, the fact that we are continuously signing nuclear disarmament treatiies with others around the globe,
all speak loud and clear about the world using nuclear weapons in any capacity.
The horror is beyond imagination. The two bombs managed to incinerate as many civilians in 10 seconds as it took Auchwitz 5 years to complete. General
Mac Arthur, the allied commander in the pacific was not even aware of it (his relationship with Truman was not the best). Other military leaders
stated that it served no military purpose. Still others have expressed their disgust and stated that they didn't join the military to participate in
this form of barbarism.
The point of this post is to state that if saving lives of military personnel was an acceptable reason to drop nuclear weapons on civilians then why
has it never been repeated and will never be repeated. That should tell you clearly which side was right.
|
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
They can argue and reargue about it as much as they want. The fact that no nation has ever dropped nuclear bombs on civilians again, the fact that
nations have signed non profileration treaties, the fact that we are continuously signing nuclear disarmament treatiies with others around the globe,
all speak loud and clear about the world using nuclear weapons in any capacity.
The horror is beyond imagination. The two bombs managed to incinerate as many civilians in 10 seconds as it took Auchwitz 5 years to complete. General
Mac Arthur, the allied commander in the pacific was not even aware of it (his relationship with Truman was not the best). Other military leaders
stated that it served no military purpose. Still others have expressed their disgust and stated that they didn't join the military to participate in
this form of barbarism.
The point of this post is to state that if saving lives of military personnel was an acceptable reason to drop nuclear weapons on civilians then why
has it never been repeated and will never be repeated. That should tell you clearly which side was right. |
I couldn't agree with you more --- that we are the only country that has used such a weapon of mass destruction is a real blot on our history even as
the historians argue why we did it.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
I probably shouldn't have compared it to Auschwits. The truth is that if the Soviets had it they would have dropped it on Berlin and the Germans would
have dropped it on Moscow. And there is no question that the Japanese would have used it on us. If a winning nation used it then certainly one that is
desperate would have used it. I don't really buy the idea that there are 'good' and 'bad' people on this planet.
Despite all of the testing I don't think it was clearly understood the carnage it would cause, at least not by the general public. I think many were
surprised and horrified by it all.
Some even argue that it's actually responsible for years of peace, for a cold war that was pretty nothing more than posturing.
|
|
|
Barry A.
Select Nomad
Posts: 10007
Registered: 11-30-2003
Location: Redding, Northern CA
Member Is Offline
Mood: optimistic
|
|
Every sane person was horrified by the bomb, and continues to be, those involved with it the most.
Barry
|
|
|
MMc
Super Nomad
Posts: 1679
Registered: 6-29-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: Current
|
|
My grandfather always said, "history is written by the winners and those that want to stay in control. Truth has little to do with anything regarding
history".
[Edited on 5-13-2014 by MMc]
"Never teach a pig to sing it frustrates you and annoys the pig" - W.C.Fields
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Dollars and Sense
Dictated Nipping a continuation of the war with the A-Bomb.
Saving countless Allied lives and (incidentally) others was the primary reason, of course, but it was also the quickest and most economical.
The Other alternative to Invasion was Curtis LeMay's preference to continue the Fire-Bombing until there was nothing left to support
resistance.
Also enormously costly in Dollars and Lives. On both sides.
There was NO chance that ANY negotiations would have resulted in surrender. ANYBODY who thinks otherwise is Ignorant of the history. Even after the
Second Bomb, there was ALMOST a rebellion which would have prevented the surrender.
BTW, the purpose of #2 was to convince the Empire that we could drop them Endlessly.
Which wasn't true, but it worked.
|
|
|
Skipjack Joe
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8084
Registered: 7-12-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion
Member Is Offline
|
|
If I remember my readings correctly the Allies demanded unconditional surrender. The Japanese had prior to the bomb sued for peace with total
agreement to all points except that the emperor retain his position as a 'deity?'. After the bomb was dropped the people of Japan wanted to continue
but the emperor himself called a halt to all of it.
Assuming this is true, was it worth incinerating all these people for this one point? What was the fear? that they would band around him and rise
again?
It was never clear to me why this was so important to Japan. I guess it was part of their culture that Hirohito had descended from God and be
worshipped. Anyways, the Allies were bent on destroying all this and demoting him to a mere mortal. This 'democratization' process is still occuring
around the world today.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
If there had not been radiation problems ... Things would have really started "popping" ..
As for the dead ..... Japan's civilian loss were far less than two other nations, Russia and China
They had 24 million and 20 million, civilian deaths, respectively ... Japan 3.1 million
World wars would appear to be some pretty ugly stuff .... regardless of time period
Really liked those "frontal charges" in WWI
http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-student...
|
|
|
Frigatebird
Nomad
Posts: 215
Registered: 9-12-2004
Location: L.A. County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Soaring
|
|
Continuing the highjack,
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...
Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks. 
|
My understanding is they are "habitable" now because the aerial detonation of the bombs allowed much of the fallout to be carried far and wide, but
those particles are still hot. Chernobyl not so "fortunate".
Avatar courtesy of Herb 
|
|
|
Mexitron
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3397
Registered: 9-21-2003
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy!
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by MrBillM
Dictated Nipping a continuation of the war with the A-Bomb.
Saving countless Allied lives and (incidentally) others was the primary reason, of course, but it was also the quickest and most economical.
The Other alternative to Invasion was Curtis LeMay's preference to continue the Fire-Bombing until there was nothing left to support
resistance.
Also enormously costly in Dollars and Lives. On both sides.
There was NO chance that ANY negotiations would have resulted in surrender. ANYBODY who thinks otherwise is Ignorant of the history. Even after the
Second Bomb, there was ALMOST a rebellion which would have prevented the surrender.
BTW, the purpose of #2 was to convince the Empire that we could drop them Endlessly.
Which wasn't true, but it worked. |
Its easier to look back and be horrified but as you say, the alternative, a land invasion, would have cost Japan far more civilian lives. I have
heard though that the reason the Japanese surrendered to us was that they didn't want to suffer the possible horrors of surrendering to the Russians
who were amassing nearby. The Japanese were pretty stubborn about surrendering at all so the bomb's devastation was encouraging but might not have
been enough.
|
|
|
SFandH
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7084
Registered: 8-5-2011
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by David K
Who here is a nuclear weapons expert and has an unbiased take on the effects of weapons based radiation vs. power plant radiation?
|
I know a lot about nuclear weapon effects. I have a Masters degree in physics and wrote classified software for the then Defense Nuclear Agency
concerning nuclear weapons effects for six years and the Strategic Air Command concerning nuclear weapons targeting for about 4 years. I also know how
power reactors are built and understand the nuclear reactions that take place. I thoroughly understand radioactivity and how ionizing radiation
interacts with living tissue.
The main difference between bombs and reactors in the area of radioactive nuclides is the amounts involved. Weapons are composed of 10s -100s of
pounds of radioactive materials. Reactors contain tons of the stuff. Weapons do produce neutron activation of non-radioactive materials, making them
radioactive (the neutron bomb) but such materials are highly radioactive and therefore decay away quickly.
Minimizing the radiological effects of 3 power reactor core melt downs because the ground beneath weapon detonations can be inhabited doesn't make any
sense. You're comparing apples and oranges.
The area around Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for generations. Cs-137, a prevalent fission product has a half-life of around 30 years. Essentially,
it takes 7 half-lives to decay to negligible amounts. I'm not sure about the ground contamination around ***ushima. I think most of the crap went out
to sea.
[Edited on 5-14-2014 by SFandH]
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
10 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
