Debates
06 Aug 05
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by Nyxiemy rec.
On that morning, one person was sitting on the stone steps of a bank, waiting for the doors to open at the moment the atomic bomb was detonated. The person died instantly, his or her body atomized. Where the stone steps were exposed to the heat flash they turned white. Where the person sat a shadow was left behind. Those stone steps with their almost photograp ...[text shortened]... es, menstruation stopped.
Robert Oppenheimer : I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
Sometime ago I "google" for the first test of the evil invention.
I can't remember if it was at New Mexico, Arizona, or wherever...
I was really impressed. Baclly impressed.
After I read the reports on the "experiment" writen by the scientists,
I feel a profound vomit (I'm not intending to be offensive) revolving my stomach.
My "science gods" go down.
All of them clapping at chorus welcoming the born of a new weapon of mass destruction... = human life.
And all of them well payed by the US goverment, plenty of bucks and their somachs plenty of food.
What can I add?
Again: KILLERS.
06 Aug 05
Originally posted by DelmerI sincerely hope for a world where one man's decision can't cause the deaths of some many. I also hope that if they do make such a decision, they be truthful and not claim that causing this mass amount of death and destruction was a "military necessity" and that the targets were "military" ones. Let the truth come out; 60 years is long enough for lies.
It was Truman's call 60 years ago and he made it. I sincerely hope all of you have the opportunity to wrestle with decisions of such magnitude before you die.
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo doubt it will take more than hope, Killer of Innocents. Good luck with your new life away from RHP.
I sincerely hope for a world where one man's decision can't cause the deaths of some many. I also hope that if they do make such a decision, they be truthful and not claim that causing this mass amount of death and destruction was a "military necessity" and that the targets were "military" ones. Let the truth come out; 60 years is long enough for lies.
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauder
I sincerely hope for a world where one man's decision can't cause the deaths of some many. I also hope that if they do make such a decision, they be truthful and not claim that causing this mass amount of death and destruction was a "military necessity" and that the targets were "military" ones. Let the truth come out; 60 years is long enough for lies.
I sincerely hope for a world where one man's decision can't cause the death of a another single human being.
Of course, I'm a dreamer.
But you got my rec again.
Michael (aka LittleBear)
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderRevisionist often rewrite history to support their own views.
The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. 100,000 people, almost all civilians died in the blast or in the immediate aftermath; at least that many died from the effects of radiation sickness in the months and years afterward.
It is now an unquestioned conclusion that the dropping of the atomic bombs was necessary to end the war against Ja ...[text shortened]... use of the A-Bomb was a "military necessity" can be found at http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm.
Japan in the summer of 1945 was governed, in the name of the emperor, by the Supreme War Council or Big Six. The SWC consisted of representives of the Army, the Navy and the civilian government. This body ruled by consensus.
The July 26 Potsdam Proclaimation explicitly called for the "unconditional surrender of the Japanese Armed Forces".
Hiroshima was bombed on Aug 6th
The Russians who had deployed massive forces at the border, declared war on Japan the afternoon of the 8th.
Nagasaki was bombed on Aug 9th.
August 10th, The US delivered a massive bombing raid on Tokyo.
August 14th, The Allies dropped leaflets describing the exchanges with the Japan's government.
August 15th, At 12 noon, the voice of Hirohito ended the war. (finally)
Truman, Commander and Chief, was a great champion of the atomic bomb. In addition to playing an essential role in ending the Second World War, the atomic bomb served Truman in several other ways. The use of the atomic bomb at the end of the war helped the Truman administration avoid congressional investigations into the clandestine development and the cost of the atomic bomb which were hidden from Congress, permitted the United States to retaliate against Japan for Pearl Harbor, and allowed Truman to use the atomic bomb as a bargaining tool with the Soviet Union.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/end.htm
http://www.dannen.com/decision/scipanel.html
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by xsYou consider Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and King who expressed their opposition at the time as "revisionists"? Interesting. And BS.
Revisionist often rewrite history to support their own views.
Japan in the summer of 1945 was governed, in the name of the emperor, by the Supreme War Council or Big Six. The SWC consisted of representives of the Army, the Navy and the civilian government. This body ruled by consensus.
The July 26 Potsdam Proclaimation explicitly called for the "uncondit ...[text shortened]... et Union.
http://www.warbirdforum.com/end.htm
http://www.dannen.com/decision/scipanel.html
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, but I also don't consider opposition to use of the A-bomb by them to mean that it did not hasten the war either.
You consider Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur and Admirals Leahy and King who expressed their opposition at the time as "revisionists"? Interesting. And BS.
MacArthur’s army headquarters in the Philippines, calculated that the maximum number of American servicemen dead in an invasion of Japan would be around 47,000. And that was not bad enough to justify the immolation and irradiation of tens of thousands of Japanese.
It was MacArthur’s wish to command an invasion.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/nuclear_05.shtml
I'm not defending the choices made, only the version of the facts.
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by LittleBearWithout big men to criticize, little men would have no lives at all. BTW, wasn't Argentina a country that welcomed the Nazis and their gold as WWII was winding down?
my rec.
Sometime ago I "google" for the first test of the evil invention.
I can't remember if it was at New Mexico, Arizona, or wherever...
I was really impressed. Baclly impressed.
After I read the reports on the "experiment" writen by the scientists,
I feel a profound vomit (I'm not intending to be offensive) revolving my stomach.
My "scien ...[text shortened]... ment, plenty of bucks and their somachs plenty of food.
What can I add?
Again: KILLERS.
07 Aug 05
Originally posted by xsIf anything is "revisionist history" it's the site you gave which basically claims that all the generals and admirals were either liars, scoundrels and/or fools. It goes from there to make sweeping assertions without providing a shred of evidence or links to external sites which provide such evidence. It is impossible to debate such an article because it is based entirely on the author's say so. If I was forced to rely only on either the feelings of the military men at the time or that of an author 60 years later, the choice is pretty obvious. Quite apart from the opinion of the military men though, what evidence there is suggests the Japanese were desperate to surrender, particulary fearing invasion and occupation by the Soviets who were about to enter the war. As to the losses an actual invasion of Japan assuming it was necessary (which I believe unlikely) would have caused, it is fallacious to compare a hypothethical campaign to Okinawa and/or Iwo Jima, small fortified islands with little room to manuever. A powerful armored force on the plains of Honshu would have cut through the Japanese defenses in days; when the Soviets hit the crack Japanese forces in Manchuria they crumbled in less than two days. It was supposed that the Nazis would fight bitterly once German soil was reached and even hole up in secret fortresses and conduct guerrilla war (just like the assertions made here regarding the Japanese) but in reality fighting was only heavy around Berlin. And the German Army was in far better shape than the Japanese Army in 1945. The ridiculous claims of 100,000 American and 2 million Japanese dead in an invasion made 60 years later and contradicting the estimates at the time are incredible and unworthy of belief.
No, but I also don't consider opposition to use of the A-bomb by them to mean that it did not hasten the war either.
MacArthur’s army headquarters in the Philippines, calculated that the maximum number of American servicemen dead in an invasion of Japan would be around 47,000. And that was not bad enough to justify the immolation and irradiation of tens of t ...[text shortened]... wwtwo/nuclear_05.shtml
I'm not defending the choices made, only the version of the facts.
08 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderI have the same view of the site you posted on page 1, much of it is second hand.
If anything is "revisionist history" it's the site you gave which basically claims that all the generals and admirals were either liars, scoundrels and/or fools. It goes from there to make sweeping assertions without providing a shred of evidence or links to external sites which provide such evidence. It is impossible to debate such an artic ...[text shortened]... 0 years later and contradicting the estimates at the time are incredible and unworthy of belief.
So any claims made 60 years later, contradicting anything at the time, only reflects opinion or belief, and therefore no cause to rewrite history.
08 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by xsWHAT??????????? The site I posted gave direct quotes from the people who were the leaders of the military AT THE TIME. I must say xs you are one of the most intellectually dishonest people I've ever had the misfortune to deal with. And the opinions of these men should have been part of history, rather than being suppressed and/or ignored.
I have the same view of the site you posted on page 1, much of it is second hand.
So any claims made 60 years later, contradicting anything at the time, only reflects opinion or belief, and therefore no cause to rewrite history.