August 6, 1945

[chemistry1973]

The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively, with the consent of the United Kingdom, as required by the Quebec Agreement, to commit mass-murder of Japanese citizens in order to terrify Japan into surrendering. The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the only uses of nuclear weapons in armed conflict. It is the the most significant example of state terrorism to date.

 

https://en.m.wikiped...ma_and_Nagasaki

I personally know many WW2 vets who told me that they would not have returned home alive if the bombs weren't dropped.

 

‘There were other ways to force a surrender.

 

They had a city destroyed and they kept fighting. In fact, the military personnel didn't want to surrender after the second bomb was dropped. The emperor had to step in and say, in essence, "enough."

 

You mean kept fighting on and over their own soil.

 

By the time we firebombed Tokyo, Japan’s back was broken.

Edited August 7, 2020 by chemistry1973

[chemistry1973]

1596749985[/url'>' post='4807244']

1596744219' post='4807202'] to commit mass-murder of Japanese citizens in order to terrify Japan into surrendering.

 

The Truman Administration destroyed Hiroshima with an atomic bomb in order to intimidate the Soviet Union.

 

Dogma-like propaganda, produced by the U.S. Government and the Media for 75 years, is being slowly proven false, thanks to declassified information regarding the Truman Administration.

 

Secretary of State James Byrnes advised Truman that the newly developed atomic bomb could "dictate terms" to the Soviet Union (a direct quote). Even before WWII had ended, the Cold War was in gear. The U.S.'s main concern was the Soviets invading Eastern Europe and Manchuria after the War was over.

 

Truman delayed the Trinity test in New Mexico (the first test of a atomic warhead detonation) from April to July 16th, 1945 - the very day before the crucial Potsdam Conference with Winston Churchill and Joseph Stalin. When Truman was informed of the Test's success, he literally danced in joy.

 

The next day, during his meeting with Stalin, Truman hinted at a "new weapon" that the U.S. had developed. Due to Soviet espionage, Stalin already knew about the U.S.'s development of the Bomb, and he was not intimidated.

 

Hiroshima was not on the Air Force's 21st Air Command's list of military targets. It held no tactical significance.

U.S. bombers were flying over Japan virtually unopposed, as Japan's military defenses were all but depleted.

Every U.S. Military Commander opposed the dropping of the Bombs, except for one - General Leslie Groves, who was in charge of the Manhattan Project.

 

Japan had been negotiating their surrender via European ambassadors.

All they wanted was to save their Emperor's honor by assuring that he would not be deposed.

The Truman Administration rigidly refused Japan's request, and demanded that surrender had to be unconditional.

 

After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendered, and lo and behold, they were allowed to keep their Emperor.

 

absolutely right. Russians were ready to invade the entire Japanese islands. The actually invaded Manchukuo 3 days after Hiroshima. The bomb gave them pause and they didn’t dare push any farther.

 

But still - we could’ve tested the bomb on another tactical military target. Using civilians to push one’s domino theory is some sick stuff.

Edited August 7, 2020 by chemistry1973

[goose]

:eyeroll:

[Rick N. Backer]

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?

[pjbear05]

The United States detonated two nuclear weapons over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945, respectively, with the consent of the United Kingdom, as required by the Quebec Agreement, to commit mass-murder of Japanese citizens in order to terrify Japan into surrendering. The two bombings killed between 129,000 and 226,000 people, most of whom were civilians, and remain the only uses of nuclear weapons in armed conflict. It is the the most significant example of state terrorism to date.

 

https://en.m.wikiped...ma_and_Nagasaki

I personally know many WW2 vets who told me that they would not have returned home alive if the bombs weren't dropped.

Operations Olympic and Coronet, the land invasions of Japan that were one of the Allies next steps, had a conservative estimate of 1 million casualties among the invading forces.

 

In reference to Project Trinity, the US has a third bomb, targeted on Tokyo.

 

And despite all the overtures and negotiations, the more hardcore military leaders advocating a "scorched earth, the Emporer is a God, final battle for honor" policy, still held sway over those wishing to end the war. That attitude pretty much ended after Nagasaki, although some fanatics in the military persisted, up to and including planned kamikaze attacks upon the USS Missouri during the surrender proceedings.

[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”?

[Rick N. Backer]

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?

[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.

[laughedatbytime]

 

Back to why we all came to TRF and leave the politics to SOCN.

[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

Looks good, library is ordering copies, I'm already on a hold list.

[Rick N. Backer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ9ajopjlNw

 

Back to why we all came to TRF and leave the politics to SOCN.

 

Yeah, it's an interesting topic, but this isn't really the place for it.

[JARG]

I drove past Manhattan when I did a cross-country drive from NC to CA.

[1-0-0-1-0-0-1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ9ajopjlNw

 

Back to why we all came to TRF and leave the politics to SOCN.

 

Yeah, it's an interesting topic, but this isn't really the place for it.

 

The political discussion in here is actually pretty good, but we all know it's just a few posts away from blowing up (no pun intended), so now's a good time to abandon it and focus on the song instead.

[driventotheedge]

Whoever found it first

Would be sure to do their worst

They always had before

 

 

 

That covers humans from the beginning of time. Who knows how much longer it'll be true? Way too long imo.

[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?

 

Yes - of course. Activists, dissidents and political opponents all murdered. It helped reduce the cost of feeding and housing German citizens as well. Also - forced labor for the war effort.

 

Also-

GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER

(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)

 

". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

 

Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.

 

In 1924 the Convention made weapons of mass destruction illegal.

 

After ww2, in 1949 and fourth convention specifically made the targeting of civilians a war crime.

Edited August 7, 2020 by chemistry1973

[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?

 

The context I’m giving is the easiest of moral judgement calls, and you are having trouble with it.

 

My timeline is sound btw.

[Rick N. Backer]

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?

 

Yes - of course. Activists, dissidents and political opponents all murdered. It helped reduce the cost of feeding and housing German citizens as well. Also - forced labor for the war effort.

 

Also-

GENERAL DWIGHT EISENHOWER

(Supreme Commander of Allies Forces in Europe)

 

". . . the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

 

Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63.

 

In 1924 the Convention made weapons of mass destruction illegal.

 

After ww2, in 1949 and fourth convention specifically made the targeting of civilians a war crime.

 

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.

[Rick N. Backer]

Chemistry, with all due respect, I think you're taking modern thinking on US foreign policy and applying it to WWII. SOCN is the place to discuss the propriety of that. You can have the last word(s).

[chemistry1973]

Seems like we can carry on an adult conversation.

 

You going to bring up a song that highlights mass murder and a war crime, I’m going to comment on it.

[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.

[New World Kid]

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.

[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.

[Nova Carmina]

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.

[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.

[goose]

 

 

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.

An OK song, imo. Other tracks are better, and I prefer Neil's writing when it's at a more personal level.