August 6, 1945

[Rick N. Backer]

I truly feel like this isn't a political topic.Its a historical one. If we were debating the merits of the storming of the Bastille, would it be too political?

 

Anyway, from everything I've read regarding the war, dropping the bomb was a terrible option out of a list of also terrible options.

 

Too soon! Vive l'ancien regime!

 

The Japanese made no distinction between civilian and combatant populations, waging total war -- the Rape of Nanjing is only the most egregious example. Ideally, we'd always like our side to behave with moral superiority, but sometimes needs must.

 

As for the song, I've always felt it was a weak link on an otherwise truly great album. I'm not sure why, though, frankly -- just a feeling I have in relation to the other tracks.

 

It's another example of a live version of a song constituting a vast improvement over the studio version. I seldom listen to Power Windows or Hold Your Fire. If I'm in the mood for that era (which is also seldom) I pull out A Show of Hands.

[laughedatbytime]

It's my favorite song on what it a pretty desultory effort.

[Chicken hawk]

Thats why i love Rush..their songs tell stories. !

[New World Kid]

It's my favorite song on what it a pretty desultory effort.

 

Power Windows isn't my favorite, but it's up there. I think there was definitely a sound they wanted to achieve, and I think they more or less did it. And I don't think any of the songs are outright clunkers.

 

I'd call Hold Your Fire more desultory.

[chemistry1973]

And yes - I’ve heard the “nuclear weapons shortened the war” argument.

 

Well -that’s BS. The chapters of the book are still being written. It’s only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is used against the US.

 

Do you place any significance on the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped?

 

Interesting book I recommend on this topic:

 

https://www.amazon.c...d/dp/1982143347

 

You mean ‘stop resisting our invasion”...

 

Which country attacked which one first?

 

Irrelevant- we are talking about mass murder of civilians.

 

Not really in the context we're discussing. "We were resisting your invasion" isn't something a country that starts a war with another can claim when the other country seeks to end the war by winning it.

 

Do you think it's significant that Japan didn't surrender when Germany did?

 

Morally speaking (and you can even refer to the Geneva Convention) mass murder of civilians - no matter who started the conflict - is sickening and morally wrong)... despite any tactical advantage you achieve.

 

I’m also positing that ramifications of this act are still yet to be seen.

 

Certainly Germany and Japan used their own justifications for atrocities. Had Germany won the war, would it be rational to judge the holocaust as “right”?

 

Was the holocaust part of Germany's war effort?

 

Where in the Geneva Conventions of 1864 does it speak to bombing another country during a war?

He seems to have trouble with timelines and larger contexts.

 

Speaking of larger contexts, how many Asians were sad to see the US put a final end to Japanese aggression? Japan's re-WWII record of atrocities against Asian people was a long one.

 

So you acknowledge Japanese atrocities but not those of the US?

 

No, I do. I'm a long-time critic of unjust US military action. Come to SOCN for more in depth discussion.

 

Can you invite me? I think I sent a PM ages ago but no response?

[chemistry1973]

“””That's a pretty tenuous connection to the "war effort." By that definition, someone paying their federal income tax was part of the war effort. The atomic bombs were military strikes. You'd agree that's more direct, no?

 

What Eisenhower himself may have thought is interesting, but not controlling. We didn't just "hit them with THAT awful thing," and end the war (emphasis added). THAT awful thing didn't stop them. The evidence supports the conclusion that the second awful thing almost didn't either.

 

There is no 1924 convention that was passed.

“”””

 

Gassing children in a camp or dropping a nuclear weapon on them are both pretty abhorrent, no?

 

You’re comparing compulsory taxes to the holocaust. Strange.

 

Prisoners we’re used to directly help the German war effort. Not tenuous. Fact - definitive and absolute. The camps were used settle scores and kill members of opposition from within and without. It was also propaganda for the effort at large.

 

If you were to take a moral position you’d be agreeing with me. Seems you’re afraid to do that.

 

 

For the Geneva protocol, that is true - these rules were not ratified until 1949. My mistake.

 

I'm happy to continue adult conversation.

 

The holocaust was not part of Germany's direct "war effort," using your terms, just as paying taxes aren't part of a direct "war effort." Dropping the bombs were military campaigns. I'm sure you see the difference.

 

Applying the "morality" of killing another person to war is nonsensical. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Unprovoked. That drew the US into a war. Germany surrendered in 1944, and Japan fought on. A nation at war isn't obligated to do what's best for its opponent's citizens, especially when it is not the initial aggressor. Since Japan started the war, I have little trouble blaming it for the results. If the choice is American casualties or Japanese casualties, if I'm the American president, it's an easy call. The history is pretty clear. Japan didn't surrender after the US destroyed Hiroshima. It was hesitant to do so after Nagasaki. To suggest it was on verge of surrender before the bombs were dropped seems inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of accounts.

 

Concentration camp prisoners built V2 rockets. It was slave labor directly associated with the war effort.

 

If the discussion of morality within the context of war is nonsensical, then you can easily justify war crimes like the holocaust and Hiroshima. And Nanking. And Bataan.

[Rick N. Backer]

“””That's a pretty tenuous connection to the "war effort." By that definition, someone paying their federal income tax was part of the war effort. The atomic bombs were military strikes. You'd agree that's more direct, no?

 

What Eisenhower himself may have thought is interesting, but not controlling. We didn't just "hit them with THAT awful thing," and end the war (emphasis added). THAT awful thing didn't stop them. The evidence supports the conclusion that the second awful thing almost didn't either.

 

There is no 1924 convention that was passed.

“”””

 

Gassing children in a camp or dropping a nuclear weapon on them are both pretty abhorrent, no?

 

You’re comparing compulsory taxes to the holocaust. Strange.

 

Prisoners we’re used to directly help the German war effort. Not tenuous. Fact - definitive and absolute. The camps were used settle scores and kill members of opposition from within and without. It was also propaganda for the effort at large.

 

If you were to take a moral position you’d be agreeing with me. Seems you’re afraid to do that.

 

 

For the Geneva protocol, that is true - these rules were not ratified until 1949. My mistake.

 

I'm happy to continue adult conversation.

 

The holocaust was not part of Germany's direct "war effort," using your terms, just as paying taxes aren't part of a direct "war effort." Dropping the bombs were military campaigns. I'm sure you see the difference.

 

Applying the "morality" of killing another person to war is nonsensical. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Unprovoked. That drew the US into a war. Germany surrendered in 1944, and Japan fought on. A nation at war isn't obligated to do what's best for its opponent's citizens, especially when it is not the initial aggressor. Since Japan started the war, I have little trouble blaming it for the results. If the choice is American casualties or Japanese casualties, if I'm the American president, it's an easy call. The history is pretty clear. Japan didn't surrender after the US destroyed Hiroshima. It was hesitant to do so after Nagasaki. To suggest it was on verge of surrender before the bombs were dropped seems inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of accounts.

 

Concentration camp prisoners built V2 rockets. It was slave labor directly associated with the war effort.

 

If the discussion of morality within the context of war is nonsensical, then you can easily justify war crimes like the holocaust and Hiroshima. And Nanking. And Bataan.

 

Tax dollars pay for military supplies too. That's the point.

 

People die in wars. That's why countries should strive to avoid them. But using your metric, would it have been immoral for Japan to shoot down the Enola Gay and "murdered" its crew?

[chemistry1973]

“””That's a pretty tenuous connection to the "war effort." By that definition, someone paying their federal income tax was part of the war effort. The atomic bombs were military strikes. You'd agree that's more direct, no?

 

What Eisenhower himself may have thought is interesting, but not controlling. We didn't just "hit them with THAT awful thing," and end the war (emphasis added). THAT awful thing didn't stop them. The evidence supports the conclusion that the second awful thing almost didn't either.

 

There is no 1924 convention that was passed.

“”””

 

Gassing children in a camp or dropping a nuclear weapon on them are both pretty abhorrent, no?

 

You’re comparing compulsory taxes to the holocaust. Strange.

 

Prisoners we’re used to directly help the German war effort. Not tenuous. Fact - definitive and absolute. The camps were used settle scores and kill members of opposition from within and without. It was also propaganda for the effort at large.

 

If you were to take a moral position you’d be agreeing with me. Seems you’re afraid to do that.

 

 

For the Geneva protocol, that is true - these rules were not ratified until 1949. My mistake.

 

I'm happy to continue adult conversation.

 

The holocaust was not part of Germany's direct "war effort," using your terms, just as paying taxes aren't part of a direct "war effort." Dropping the bombs were military campaigns. I'm sure you see the difference.

 

Applying the "morality" of killing another person to war is nonsensical. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Unprovoked. That drew the US into a war. Germany surrendered in 1944, and Japan fought on. A nation at war isn't obligated to do what's best for its opponent's citizens, especially when it is not the initial aggressor. Since Japan started the war, I have little trouble blaming it for the results. If the choice is American casualties or Japanese casualties, if I'm the American president, it's an easy call. The history is pretty clear. Japan didn't surrender after the US destroyed Hiroshima. It was hesitant to do so after Nagasaki. To suggest it was on verge of surrender before the bombs were dropped seems inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of accounts.

 

Concentration camp prisoners built V2 rockets. It was slave labor directly associated with the war effort.

 

If the discussion of morality within the context of war is nonsensical, then you can easily justify war crimes like the holocaust and Hiroshima. And Nanking. And Bataan.

 

Tax dollars pay for military supplies too. That's the point.

 

People die in wars. That's why countries should strive to avoid them. But using your metric, would it have been immoral for Japan to shoot down the Enola Gay and "murdered" its crew?

 

no and no.

 

committing a war crime is a choice. Even guards at Dachau had choices.

 

Paying and taxes, and guarding a death chamber at an illegal prison camp are distinctly, wholly different things.

 

the crew of the Ebola Gay were combatants. The women and children of Hiroshima were not. That’s the distinction. Shooting down the Enola Gay would’ve been fair play, obviously.

[goose]

And yes - I’ve heard the “nuclear weapons shortened the war” argument.

 

Well -that’s BS. The chapters of the book are still being written. It’s only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is used against the US.

 

Do you place any significance on the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped?

 

Interesting book I recommend on this topic:

 

https://www.amazon.c...d/dp/1982143347

 

You mean ‘stop resisting our invasion”...

 

Which country attacked which one first?

 

Irrelevant- we are talking about mass murder of civilians.

 

Not really in the context we're discussing. "We were resisting your invasion" isn't something a country that starts a war with another can claim when the other country seeks to end the war by winning it.

 

Do you think it's significant that Japan didn't surrender when Germany did?

 

Morally speaking (and you can even refer to the Geneva Convention) mass murder of civilians - no matter who started the conflict - is sickening and morally wrong)... despite any tactical advantage you achieve.

 

I’m also positing that ramifications of this act are still yet to be seen.

 

Certainly Germany and Japan used their own justifications for atrocities. Had Germany won the war, would it be rational to judge the holocaust as “right”?

 

Was the holocaust part of Germany's war effort?

 

Where in the Geneva Conventions of 1864 does it speak to bombing another country during a war?

He seems to have trouble with timelines and larger contexts.

 

Speaking of larger contexts, how many Asians were sad to see the US put a final end to Japanese aggression? Japan's re-WWII record of atrocities against Asian people was a long one.

 

So you acknowledge Japanese atrocities but not those of the US?

 

No, I do. I'm a long-time critic of unjust US military action. Come to SOCN for more in depth discussion.

 

Can you invite me? I think I sent a PM ages ago but no response?

1001001 is the guy to contact.

[Rick N. Backer]

“””That's a pretty tenuous connection to the "war effort." By that definition, someone paying their federal income tax was part of the war effort. The atomic bombs were military strikes. You'd agree that's more direct, no?

 

What Eisenhower himself may have thought is interesting, but not controlling. We didn't just "hit them with THAT awful thing," and end the war (emphasis added). THAT awful thing didn't stop them. The evidence supports the conclusion that the second awful thing almost didn't either.

 

There is no 1924 convention that was passed.

“”””

 

Gassing children in a camp or dropping a nuclear weapon on them are both pretty abhorrent, no?

 

You’re comparing compulsory taxes to the holocaust. Strange.

 

Prisoners we’re used to directly help the German war effort. Not tenuous. Fact - definitive and absolute. The camps were used settle scores and kill members of opposition from within and without. It was also propaganda for the effort at large.

 

If you were to take a moral position you’d be agreeing with me. Seems you’re afraid to do that.

 

 

For the Geneva protocol, that is true - these rules were not ratified until 1949. My mistake.

 

I'm happy to continue adult conversation.

 

The holocaust was not part of Germany's direct "war effort," using your terms, just as paying taxes aren't part of a direct "war effort." Dropping the bombs were military campaigns. I'm sure you see the difference.

 

Applying the "morality" of killing another person to war is nonsensical. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Unprovoked. That drew the US into a war. Germany surrendered in 1944, and Japan fought on. A nation at war isn't obligated to do what's best for its opponent's citizens, especially when it is not the initial aggressor. Since Japan started the war, I have little trouble blaming it for the results. If the choice is American casualties or Japanese casualties, if I'm the American president, it's an easy call. The history is pretty clear. Japan didn't surrender after the US destroyed Hiroshima. It was hesitant to do so after Nagasaki. To suggest it was on verge of surrender before the bombs were dropped seems inconsistent with the overwhelming majority of accounts.

 

Concentration camp prisoners built V2 rockets. It was slave labor directly associated with the war effort.

 

If the discussion of morality within the context of war is nonsensical, then you can easily justify war crimes like the holocaust and Hiroshima. And Nanking. And Bataan.

 

Tax dollars pay for military supplies too. That's the point.

 

People die in wars. That's why countries should strive to avoid them. But using your metric, would it have been immoral for Japan to shoot down the Enola Gay and "murdered" its crew?

 

no and no.

 

committing a war crime is a choice. Even guards at Dachau had choices.

 

Paying and taxes, and guarding a death chamber at an illegal prison camp are distinctly, wholly different things.

 

the crew of the Ebola Gay were combatants. The women and children of Hiroshima were not. That’s the distinction. Shooting down the Enola Gay would’ve been fair play, obviously.

 

You're equating the actions of a country that was trying to end a war it was dragged into to the actions of the guards at Dachau? The US dropped leaflets on Japan warning them to surrender. Which is more mercy than they showed the people at Pearl Harbor. https://www.pbs.org/...ruman-leaflets/

 

I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I understand your point of view. I don't agree with it.

[chemistry1973]

Fair enough!

[_hi_water._]

Power Windows - Manhattan Project, Territories, and Middletown Dreams

 

wow excellent lyrical content on here

[ST3V]

Power Windows - Manhattan Project, Territories, and Middletown Dreams

 

wow excellent lyrical content on here

PoW and HYF were Neil's songwriting peak

[Tony R]

I prefer (Todd Rundgren) Utopia’s Hiroshima. Seems more poignant and caustic.

 

http://youtu.be/idHTOeN4pEo

Edited August 9, 2020 by Tony R

[HemiBeers]

I watched a PBS documentary on the prostitution trade in Hawaii during WWII. Pretty interesting. They had the 2nd commander in charge of the Navy overseeing it. They turned it into a 'drive thru' industry. Any woman that arrived to Honolulu that was unaccompanied was assumed to be a 'working girl' and directed to one of the hotels. It was literally an assembly line operation with guys line up around the block. The STD rate was actually very low because they trained the girls to do an 'inspection'. You don't want to send guys into battle with a burning sensation that distracts them from their duty. There were alot of strict rules for the girls...couldn't ride with anyone in a car, couldn't own property, etc. They eventually formed a union and went on strike and got some concessions. One of the more popular and prosperous ladies came up with a creative real estate scheme. She would buy a house, then when the neighbors found out what she did they wanted her out. Fine then, buy my house for a tidy profit and I'll move. She did this a few times; different way to flip a house I guess.

 

Funny when you think of previous generations being more conservative and puritan. They were just as freaky as anyone these days, just a little more discrete about it.

 

Just a (perversion) diversion from the dooms day history talk.

[HemiBeers]

Years ago I was lucky to vacation in Hawaii with my wife on one of her work trips. We did the island tour bus thing the first day, because I knew I was going to be jetlagged, and part of that was Pearl Harbor and the Arizona memorial. Wasn't really into it at first, but it's a sobering and interesting site. You can look down the mast of the Arizona from the memorial and just imagine the guys who didn't have a chance to get out of there. The ship is only about 100 feet from one of the small islands, but it was struck so quickly that there was no hope of escape.

 

Now the story of the ship still leaking oil is a little odd to me, especially since it's been nearly 80 years. I did see and smell the oil on the surface, but only after we were on the memorial for about 10-15 minutes. So is this timed and manufactured as an effect or truely something that's still leaking on it's own?

[Principled Man]

Funny when you think of previous generations being more conservative and puritan. They were just as freaky as anyone these days, just a little more discrete about it.

 

Today's Code of Silence is nothing compared to the codes of past generations. People's closets were chock-full of skeletons. :tsk:

[chemistry1973]

Years ago I was lucky to vacation in Hawaii with my wife on one of her work trips. We did the island tour bus thing the first day, because I knew I was going to be jetlagged, and part of that was Pearl Harbor and the Arizona memorial. Wasn't really into it at first, but it's a sobering and interesting site. You can look down the mast of the Arizona from the memorial and just imagine the guys who didn't have a chance to get out of there. The ship is only about 100 feet from one of the small islands, but it was struck so quickly that there was no hope of escape.

 

Now the story of the ship still leaking oil is a little odd to me, especially since it's been nearly 80 years. I did see and smell the oil on the surface, but only after we were on the memorial for about 10-15 minutes. So is this timed and manufactured as an effect or truely something that's still leaking on it's own?

 

I’ve heard that story too. I visited the memorial in the 90s. I don’t remember seeing oil, but I do remember seeing air bubbles at the surface, and that freaked me out a bit.

[goose]

Years ago I was lucky to vacation in Hawaii with my wife on one of her work trips. We did the island tour bus thing the first day, because I knew I was going to be jetlagged, and part of that was Pearl Harbor and the Arizona memorial. Wasn't really into it at first, but it's a sobering and interesting site. You can look down the mast of the Arizona from the memorial and just imagine the guys who didn't have a chance to get out of there. The ship is only about 100 feet from one of the small islands, but it was struck so quickly that there was no hope of escape.

 

Now the story of the ship still leaking oil is a little odd to me, especially since it's been nearly 80 years. I did see and smell the oil on the surface, but only after we were on the memorial for about 10-15 minutes. So is this timed and manufactured as an effect or truely something that's still leaking on it's own?

https://www.history.com/news/5-facts-about-pearl-harbor-and-the-uss-arizona

 

 

 

"Fuel continues to leak from USS Arizona’s wreckage.

On December 6, 1941, Arizona took on a full load of fuel—nearly 1.5 million gallons—in preparation for its scheduled trip to the mainland later that month. The next day, much of it fed the explosion and subsequent fires that destroyed the ship following its attack by Japanese bombers. However, despite the raging fire and ravages of time, some 500,000 gallons are still slowly seeping out of the ship’s submerged wreckage: Nearly 70 years after its demise, Arizona continues to spill up to 9 quarts of oil into the harbor each day. In the mid-1990s, environmental concerns led the National Park Service to commission a series of site studies to determine the long-term effects of the oil leakage."

[tangy]

i recommend the first godzilla movie AKA Gojira to further contemplate on this subject matter.............

[78jazz]

Power Windows - Manhattan Project, Territories, and Middletown Dreams

 

wow excellent lyrical content on here

 

IMO Power Windows was the start of about a 10 year run of Neil's best lyrics.

[_hi_water._]

Power Windows - Manhattan Project, Territories, and Middletown Dreams

 

wow excellent lyrical content on here

 

IMO Power Windows was the start of about a 10 year run of Neil's best lyrics.

If I could only reach that dial inside

If I could only reach that dial inside

If I could only reach that dial inside

And turn it up

face up or you can only back down

(Face up), hit the target, or you better hit the ground

(Face up), there's still time to turn this game around

(Face up), turn it up or turn that wild card down

(Face up), turn it up

 

 

Half the world lives

Half the world makes

Half the world gives

While the other half takes

Half the world is

Half the world was

Half the world thinks

While the other half does

[ST3V]

Power Windows - Manhattan Project, Territories, and Middletown Dreams

 

wow excellent lyrical content on here

 

IMO Power Windows was the start of about a 10 year run of Neil's best lyrics.

If I could only reach that dial inside

If I could only reach that dial inside

If I could only reach that dial inside

And turn it up

face up or you can only back down

(Face up), hit the target, or you better hit the ground

(Face up), there's still time to turn this game around

(Face up), turn it up or turn that wild card down

(Face up), turn it up

 

 

 

Half the world lives

Half the world makes

Half the world gives

While the other half takes

Half the world is

Half the world was

Half the world thinks

While the other half does

 

Is this examples of good lyrics, or are you trying to prove 78jazz wrong? Because I think these are pretty good lyrics

[78jazz]

I am not saying everything be did was good, but out of his entire career it wss probably his most consistent.

[pjbear05]

And yes - I’ve heard the “nuclear weapons shortened the war” argument.

 

Well -that’s BS. The chapters of the book are still being written. It’s only a matter of time before a nuclear weapon is used against the US.

 

Do you place any significance on the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first atomic bomb was dropped?

 

Interesting book I recommend on this topic:

 

https://www.amazon.c...d/dp/1982143347

Finished Countdown 1945, excellent book. I knew quite a bit of the history of the Manhattan Project and the bombings, but a couple new things had me in deep thought:

 

Trinity and a 3rd bomb, target Tokyo? Not even close. Truman promised "a rain of ruin from the skies" and the Project had the means to back it up, turning out a bomb in 8 days. Also, due to political or historical significance, Tokyo and Kyoto were held off the list of targeted cities.

 

Project Director Robert Oppenheimer had one regret, that such a device wasn't ready in time to use on Nazi Germany. I think if one had been, military fanatics in Japan or no, the war would have ended.

 

There is also the story of Hideko Tamura, a 10 year old girl living in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing. Her experiences of particularly touching.

 

Highly recommended!