There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 09:54PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

in fairness , there was a really big flash and all downtown Hiroshima vanished , along with 70,000 people , they noticed this fact real quick , hard not to notice a missing city

In "fairness", we're talking about the 1940's here. While the effects of the bomb were to the people immediately affected by it, it was much less so to the people in Tokyo, who were making the decisions.

The first government dispatch to Hiroshima didn't even arrive until a full day after the bombing.

Things took time in 1945.

dj jarvis wrote: »

...and they wanted to fight

Ok..I see you've understood absolutely nothing. :rolleyes:

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 09:58PM

Tony EH wrote: »

why would the US have to fly just one bomber to the target, when they had such an incredible arsenal at their disposal? Their bombers had free range of Japan by August 1945, such was the state of the Japanese Army and Navy air forces.

So fly lots of bombers? That seems like an even worse idea. They had free range over japan because they weren't telling the japanaese where they were going to be

Tony EH wrote: »

The thing is, if the US were really just interested in ending the war and "saving lives", then why drop the bomb on a city that nobody had heard of prior to the war? Why not drop it on Tokyo?

Because they wanted to see how much damage the bomb could do, they spared Hiroshima and Nagasaki from previous bombing for this reason, seems like common sense to me if you've invested billions in a weapon to see what it can do. If you have to drop a bomb you might as well get as much valuable data as possible.

Tony EH wrote: »

Besides, a demonstration need not have taken place at all. All the Americans had to do was modify their "unconditional surrender" stance and approach the Japanese and see what their terms were.

It really was that simple by that stage.

That is speculation, you don't know that you suspect it, the facts are a war was raging, the bombs were dropped, and the war ended almost immediately.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:00PM

Tony EH wrote: »

In "fairness", we're talking about the 1940's here. While the effects of the bomb were to the people immediately affected by it, it was much less so to the people in Tokyo, who were making the decisions.

The first government dispatch to Hiroshima didn't even arrive until a full day after the bombing.

Things took time in 1945.

Ok..I see you've understood absolutely nothing. :rolleyes:

em , they had phones and radios , as advanced as any nation at the time , they had time to get the leading scientist to the site to tell them it was a plutonium bomb , yet they did not know it had happened , curious

nice rolly eyes - but not needed , you see , i think you are wrong , if you want , i can start quoting books the totally contradict your view , and the we can get into the qualifications and back grounds of the author - yawn

your notion that they did not know after 3 days is nonsense

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:00PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Has anybody mentioned this guy yet?

In this book Mr. Rhodes documents interviews taken after the war. One of the interviews was with Japan's leading physicist who also headed up Japan's atomic bomb research program ( yes, Japan was working on the atomic bomb as were several other countries in the 1930's). He was called to Hiroshima to advise Japan on what to do. Seeing that the USA had used a uranium based bomb, this physicist advised his government to CONTINUE THE WAR, as it would take months to prep another uranium bomb. After Nagasaki, however, he found evidence of a plutonium based bomb and advised his government to SURRENDER or face total destruction. So you see, even the first bomb was not enough to end the war. And the rest, as they say, is history

That's one guy's opinion.

The Army and Navy Ministers were for prolonging the war also, until favorable terms could be secured...

...so what.

The important facts are that Japan was looking for a way to sue for peace long before the first bomb even fell, spurred on by no less a figure than Hirohito himself.

Besides, don't take my word for it. Look up what contemporary figures at the time had said, such as Ernest King, Henry Arnold, or the aforemention William Leahy. Even the gung ho Curtis Le May believed that the Atomic bomb was unnecessary for ending the war with Japan.

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:05PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

So fly lots of bombers? That seems like an even worse idea. They had free range over japan because they weren't telling the japanaese where they were going to be

I'm assuming you don't have much of a grasp on the history of the period.

The Japanese had little to no airforce left by 1945. Any attempt, when one was even mounted, to intercept bombing raids at that point was met with setback after setback. Even if they had tried to intercept the actual demonstration raid, it would have be utterly futile, such was the state of their air force and most importantly their fuel situation.

Either way, the vast majority of allied raids over Japan's home islands at that time were being carried out unopposed.

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 10:06PM

Tony EH wrote: »

That's one guy's opinion.

It's not really an opinion, the quote is from a physicist who was actually involved in the decision

Tony EH wrote: »

Besides, don't take my word for it. Look up what contemporary figures at the time had said, such as Ernest King, Henry Arnold, or the aforemention William Leahy. Even the gung ho Curtis Le May believed that the Atomic bomb was unnecessary for ending the war with Japan.

These are opinions because they don't know what was going on in Japans leadership. But you keep throwing out names of people who said it was unnecessary and I'll keep throwing back names of people who said it was. The point is they're all only opinions.

The facts show dropping the bombs ended the biggest war in history

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:12PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

em , they had phones and radios , as advanced as any nation at the time , they had time to get the leading scientist to the site to tell them it was a plutonium bomb , yet they did not know it had happened , curious

nice rolly eyes - but not needed , you see , i think you are wrong , if you want , i can start quoting books the totally contradict your view , and the we can get into the qualifications and back grounds of the author - yawn

your notion that they did not know after 3 days is nonsense

Of course they knew. :rolleyes:

But there was no time to assess the real impact of the bombing. Three days certainly is not enough time for any political mechanisation to achieve anything, even today.

There were those in Tokyo who believed that it was a conventional bombing, despite evidence to the contrary.

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 10:15PM

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm assuming you don't have much of a grasp on the history of the period.

The Japanese had little to no airforce left by 1945. Any attempt, when one was even mounted, to intercept bombing raids at that point was met with setback after setback. Even if they had tried to intercept the actual demonstration raid, it would have be utterly futile, such was the state of their air force and most importantly their fuel situation.
.

But to drop a demonstration bomb, you'd have to tell them exactly where to be, so they'd know exactly where you were going to be.

Japan had a small airforce in the context of a war, and a fuel shortage in the context of a war, but if you're going to tell them exactly where you'll be and when, they can focus everything they have. Sure they would have lost, but it would too risky for the US, if the Japanese hit the right plane, they could acquire the bomb.I wouldn't take that risk if I was making the decision, dropping a billion dollar bomb in the ocean during war, would just seem too risky when you can drop it on a city and end the war.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:15PM

Tony EH wrote: »

I'm assuming you don't have much of a grasp on the history of the period.

The Japanese had little to no airforce left by 1945. Any attempt, when one was even mounted, to intercept bombing raids at that point was met with setback after setback. Even if they had tried to intercept the actual demonstration raid, it would have be utterly futile, such was the state of their air force and most importantly their fuel situation.

Either way, the vast majority of allied raids over Japan's home islands at that time were being carried out unopposed.

and this stopped the nearly 2 million people they could call on to wage a land and insurgents campaign how? , everyone knew they had no air force , but that does not solve the fact they still had , people , who were fanatic and armed

the Americans and the Russians would have had to but boots on the ground
just like the germans , they would have fought until Tokyo was gone , just like berlin

they surrendered because of the bombings

its documented that the ruling military only considered surrender after the second bomb , maybe based on scientific data

the population were scared ****less of the Americans , they were fed nearly 2 decades of propaganda , Christ , women were committing suicide with their babys in their arms by jumping off cliffs rather than surrender , they were so afriad at what the americans were going to do to them, and this was not even the main land

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:17PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

The facts show dropping the bombs ended the biggest war in history

So sad that people keep clinging to this nonsense.

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:19PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

But to drop a demonstration bomb, you'd have to tell them exactly where to be, so they'd know exactly where you were going to be.

Japan had a small airforce in the context of a war, and a fuel shortage in the context of a war, but if you're going to tell them exactly where you'll be and when, they can focus everything they have. Sure they would have lost, but it would too risky for the US, if the Japanese hit the right plane, they could acquire the bomb.I wouldn't take that risk if I was making the decision, dropping a billion dollar bomb in the ocean during war, would just seem too risky when you can drop it on a city and end the war.

So, then approach the Japanese and see what their terms for surrender were.

War over.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:20PM

Tony EH wrote: »

Of course they knew. :rolleyes:

But there was no time to assess the real impact of the bombing. Three days certainly is not enough time for any political mechanisation to achieve anything, even today.

There were those in Tokyo who believed that it was a conventional bombing, despite evidence to the contrary.

you were the one that said 3 days was not enough , for what?
the realize a city has vanished , really ?

sorry , but i think you are way off the mark , they knew what these weapons were , they were trying to build their own , they had phones , they knew

problem was , the military was in control , not the government , not the emperor , only after the second bomb did they move

its documented

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:21PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

and this stopped the nearly 2 million people they could call on to wage a land and insurgents campaign how? , everyone knew they had no air force , but that does not solve the fact they still had , people , who were fanatic and armed

the Americans and the Russians would have had to but boots on the ground
just like the germans , they would have fought until Tokyo was gone , just like berlin

they surrendered because of the bombings

its documented that the ruling military only considered surrender after the second bomb , maybe based on scientific data

the population were scared ****less of the Americans , they were fed nearly 2 decades of propaganda , Christ , women were committing suicide with their babys in their arms by jumping off cliffs rather than surrender , they were so afriad at what the americans were going to do to them, and this was not even the main land

Wow...you really aren't getting it are you.

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 10:21PM

Tony EH wrote: »

So sad that people keep clinging to this nonsense.

You mean the facts are nonsense, we should be clinging to opinions?

WW2 lasted 6 years, The atomic bombs were dropped and within a few days the war was over. Are you saying that was a co-incidence? That the bombs did not end the war?

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:25PM

Tony EH wrote: »

So sad that people keep clinging to this nonsense.

can i ask you tony , why is your version not the documented , widely accepted version if so accurate , or would it be that the notion you are supposing is not credited by history as it widely reported

because to go on your hypothesis , America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki knowing full well that they had or could get unconditional surrender from the Japanese !!! hold the front pages !!!

so. that's what your saying , in a nut shell , unless im picking you up wrong

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:26PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

you were the one that said 3 days was not enough , for what?
the realize a city has vanished , really ?

sorry , but i think you are way off the mark , they knew what these weapons were , they were trying to build their own , they had phones , they knew

problem was , the military was in control , not the government , not the emperor , only after the second bomb did they move

its documented

You don't understand how a political machine works, do you. You cannot just make a decision and hey presto...instant policy.

It takes time and a long time.

Even more so in Imperial wartime Japan.

Also, the government was the military, the majority of whom were in favor of peace, so your point is meaningless.

The facts are that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender and the US had options. All the cards were in their hands, yet they chose to go with the most destructive...twice.

There is no justification for using the atomic bombs on Japan.

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:27PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

You mean the facts are nonsense, we should be clinging to opinions?

WW2 lasted 6 years, The atomic bombs were dropped and within a few days the war was over. Are you saying that was a co-incidence? That the bombs did not end the war?

The war was over before the first bomb fell. Have you been reading anything in the last few pages?

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 10:30PM

Tony EH wrote: »

The war was over before the first bomb fell. Have you been reading anything in the last few pages?

I have Tony, but I think I'll stick what recorded historical facts have to say, over what you've said on boards.ie. No offence.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:34PM

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't understand how a political machine works, do you. You cannot just make a decision and hey presto...instant policy.

It takes time and a long time.

Even more so in Imperial wartime Japan.

Also, the government was the military, the majority of whom were in favor of peace, so your point is meaningless.

The facts are that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender and the US had options. All the cards were in their hands, yet they chose to go with the most destructive...twice.

There is no justification for using the atomic bombs on Japan.

rubbish

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:35PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

can i ask you tony , why is your version not the documented , widely accepted version if so accurate , or would it be that the notion you are supposing is not credited by history as it widely reported

because to go on your hypothesis , America bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki knowing full well that they had or could get unconditional surrender from the Japanese !!! hold the front pages !!!

so. that's what your saying , in a nut shell , unless im picking you up wrong

Of course it's documented. I've already given some pointers on where to study.

As for acceptance, complicated or uncomfortable history is often difficult for people to palate. It doesn't make it any less true.

Besides, everything I've written is available. You just have to do the reading. There is certainly nothing new in what I've said.

Even Churchill said that Japan's fate was sealed before the first bomb dropped.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:37PM

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't understand how a political machine works, do you. You cannot just make a decision and hey presto...instant policy.

It takes time and a long time.

Even more so in Imperial wartime Japan.

Also, the government was the military, the majority of whom were in favor of peace, so your point is meaningless.

The facts are that the Japanese were looking for a way to surrender and the US had options. All the cards were in their hands, yet they chose to go with the most destructive...twice.

There is no justification for using the atomic bombs on Japan.

lol

the government was separate from the military, and they had full control , they had control of most of the ministers , and Tojo agreed , read up on the control certain generals had over the government , and come back to me

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:39PM

It was a military controlled government.

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:42PM

tony , answer me the question posted in 283 , you have documented proof that america had knowingly a surrender and still went ahead a bombed

i would love to see it , not some un accredit source

because i can get the Americans invasion plans and japans defense plans
your saying otherwise , so some links would be nice

dees99 · 06-01-2014 10:50PM

Stealth bombers don't deliberately target innocent civilians. Suicide bombers do! Suicide bombers even target schools

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:52PM

tony

On August 7, a day after Hiroshima was destroyed, Dr. Yoshio Nishina and other atomic physicists arrived at the city and carefully examined the damage. They then went back to Tokyo and told the cabinets that Hiroshima was indeed destroyed by an atomic bomb. However, the Japanese military, including Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on."[135] American MAGIC codebreakers intercepted the cabinets' messages and reported them back to Washington D.C

they were going to fight on , and the Americans had this info , that does not suggest surrender

dj jarvis · 06-01-2014 10:56PM

i give up

if someone wants to start a thread on the bombing of japan , ill join in
otherwise , im out of here , this is not the thread

Nino Brown · 06-01-2014 10:57PM

dees99 wrote: »

Stealth bombers don't deliberately target innocent civilians. Suicide bombers do! Suicide bombers even target schools

They do though, collateral damage is part of war, and everyone knows it. When a stealth bomber drops a bomb they know they will very likely kill "innocent" people.
The term "innocent" is somewhat subjective though when it comes to war. For example, if you drop a bomb on a bomb factory, the workers are civilians, are they innocent?

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 10:57PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

tony , answer me the question posted in 283 , you have documented proof that america had knowingly a surrender and still went ahead a bombed

i would love to see it , not some un accredit source

because i can get the Americans invasion plans and japans defense plans
your saying otherwise , so some links would be nice

The purple codes had yielded an enormous amount of data to the US on what the Japanese were discussing re: peace. The Japanese, who never suspected that their codes had been broken, might as well have broadcasted their messages in the clear.

In July, the US intercepted a message clearly stating that Japan was looking for a way out. But unconditional surrender was a major sticking point.

The US could have, if they wished to, modified the UC stance and privately assured the Japanese of their intentions not to harm the Emperor.

This alone could have, at least set off negotiations toward a peaceful conclusion to the war.

Had the Japanese then become stubborn about the situation (which was highly unlikely), the US could still resort to using their new weapon.

Again, I'll say to you to check out at least Liddel Hart's excellent volume on the Second World War and 'The Emperor's Codes' by Michael Smith for understanding what the the US were reading during the war.

Even if you are opposed to the views expressed by me, they are interesting reading on the period in any case.

Tony EH · 06-01-2014 11:10PM

dj jarvis wrote: »

tony

On August 7, a day after Hiroshima was destroyed, Dr. Yoshio Nishina and other atomic physicists arrived at the city and carefully examined the damage. They then went back to Tokyo and told the cabinets that Hiroshima was indeed destroyed by an atomic bomb. However, the Japanese military, including Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, estimated that no more than one or two additional bombs could be readied so they decided to endure the remaining attacks, acknowledging "there would be more destruction but the war would go on."[135] American MAGIC codebreakers intercepted the cabinets' messages and reported them back to Washington D.C

they were going to fight on , and the Americans had this info , that does not suggest surrender

No, that's the opinion of one man. Not national policy and certainly not Hirohito's stance.

Besides, if continuing the war was so prevalent in the minds of the Japanese, why would they send Konoye to Russia on diplomatic missions with peaceful targets?

Even in 1944, the US had wind that a "peace party" had become vocal within the Japanese government and that Koiso's cabinet would soon fall. Koiso gave way to Suzuki, whose cabinet was even more disposed toward a peaceful conclusion to the war.

It's clear that Hirohito was looking for a way to end the war and had instructed his ministers to do so.

It's Hirohito's position on the matter that's important, not the opinion of some obscure scientist.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 06-01-2014 11:11PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

They do though, collateral damage is part of war, and everyone knows it. When a stealth bomber drops a bomb they know they will very likely kill "innocent" people.

Its part of war, not all of war.

I've seen lots of bombs drop on target without damage to civilians or civilian property, the majority in fact cause little damage to anything but the intended target.

However bombs do fall short, or are not aimed correctly etc etc and innocent people will be killed but I've never seen that happen deliberately.

It would be a very expensive way to kill innocent people ~ a much cheaper way (if you really don't care about killing innocents) would be to carpet bomb an area with old 'dumb' unguided munitions.

There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber

Comments