Daily Show -- August 24 -- Guest Kerry

[PhillyKev 0]

There are plenty of "experts" on both sides of the issue as to whether using Nukes saved lives or not. You're expressing one opinion that's out there, and the one most commonly believed by the public. But there are people with more knowledge than you or I that would dispute that.

One thing that's not in dispute is that FDR had stated a desire to use a Nuke in order to demonstrate it's destructive power and set us up as a super power that could wipe out whomever we wanted, particularly the Russians. I think that probably had a much greater influence on the decision, along with sparing US troops than any thought that it would save innocent civilian lives.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Yes, and that's what really matters...military successes.

Um, yeah, in total war, that is what counts Val.

It's not nice.
It's not clean.
It's not even humane.

but who said war is ever one of those things?



Oh, and billvon (I think it was you):
I wouldn't trade one US soldier for 100,000 citizens of an enemy nation. I'd rather neither has to die, but in a war, people fighting for me are a higher priority than people opposing them.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Ron 10]

Quote

Pretty funny. You blast bad public schools, then when someone posts they went to a great school you make fun of that as well.

No actually I made fun of your dodging the question with the "Black Helicopter" comment.

Quote

I'm sure if my teachers point of view agreed with yours you would have used it as a point to stand on.

Duh, just like you used it to be against me. It's a simple concept, you don't normally cite things that disagree with your view.

Quote

I'm probably a bit more studied than you know

You were a few classes away from getting a degree from a Seminary school. You can't transfer those credits since you owe that school money over something.

Quote

Unlike others I keep myself well read and informed for my own good, not to argue gratuitously in a public forum

Good for you, but then why are you debating me now?

I like to debate since it sharpens or challenges my view point. A healthy discussion is a great way to learn.

Quote

Thats what the speech team was for in High School - it was fun back then

Hell, its fun now.
It's a shame you would rather hold on to your beliefs than bring them out to be questioned.

Quote

Growing up on the south side, blue collar world of Chicago I couldn't throw a rock without hitting someone in the area that wasn't in the military at one time

That does not make you an expert on the military or even give you a real foundation for the military experience.

Its like trying to get someone to understand a skydive that has never jumped...you can't.

Quote

I've heard countless stories on how it ruined most peoples lives. I continue to see it on a weekly basis at my job where former military people are coming to me complaining about never getting the education promised to them by the recruiter and how they have been screwed out of the post-enlistment benefits. I would say I average at least 5 a week.

Well in your job as a school recruiter it makes sense to me that people looking to go back to school are not happy with what they were or are doing....It's called selective sampling.

How many of those 5 are using the GI bill to go back to school?

Quote

My views on war, military, politics, will never match up with yours.

Yep, but that does not make mine or yours "wrong". What a great country where people are free to make their own minds and openly debate everything huh?

A freedom I might add that was won with a gun

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Vallerina 2]

Quote

It's not nice.
It's not clean.
It's not even humane.

but who said war is ever one of those things?

And, it's also rare that the wealthy people in power die in war, but they're usually the ones who make the decisions about it.

I don't think war is ever necessary, but I can at least see the other side a few of the times when it may have been "necessary." Most of it, though, is like our given situation: try to scare the public into thinking that we need to kill others. It works rather well, it seems.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Go figure, you had something else to say.

Yes, I enjoy having my views questioned and challenged by someone that has an open mind. I'll save my breath for those people.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Zenister 0]

Quote

Quote

you really need to understand the Japanese warrior mindset

No, I just need to understand the American bubble mindset of "Let's blow stuff up! It only matters if US civilians die! Who cares about other civilians?"

Quote

It is ridiculous to call the second bomb a ‘mistake’ from anything other than a humanitarian view. Militarily it was a stunning success.

Yes, and that's what really matters...military successes.

I'm really surprised to see people actually think that second bomb was necessary.....

In War, all that matters is military success and combat efficiency. It is the nature of war, concern for other matters not relating to those generally causes unnecessary losses.

Perhaps you'd like to try storming a beach with 1 million women and children (mind you your male from a culture with a bit more respect for both than we have now) trying to kill you with anything and everything they have at hand. You cant sit, cant stop, cant eat, cant drink from anything you didn’t bring with you because it could be trapped, poisoned etc... You are not a member of a 'liberating army' being greeted by cheering locals, you are an INVADER on an island of people who believe death in the service of a noble cause is the highest honor, and who have for the most part been indoctrinated with the belief that you are inhuman monsters with little regard for life at all..

Quote

There are plenty of "experts" on both sides of the issue as to whether using Nukes saved lives or not. You're expressing one opinion that's out there, and the one most commonly believed by the public. But there are people with more knowledge than you or I that would dispute that.

there are no military experts who dispute it, perhaps you should spend some time at a military command school such as the Air War/Air Command and Staff College/ Army Command and Staff and study the plans for the invasion of Japan and the captured plans and post war interviews of Japanese officers who prepared for it's defense.

the only people who still dispute it are liberal art humanitarian scholars who have never seen War at all, and do not understand military necessity or the Bushido mindset...believe me i've had this argument with many of them throughout college. All their arguments crumble when faced with documented facts and post war interviews from the military institutions that make a point to study warfare and learn lessons from past conflicts.

are you going to participate in your funeral and get into a plane loaded with explosives? If you answer 'no' and cant imagine why anyone would, don’t pretend you understand the mindset or resolve of a culture that has no problem with it...

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Go figure, you had something else to say.

Yes, I enjoy having my views questioned and challenged by someone that has an open mind. I'll save my breath for those people.

You may find some if you open your mind.

Of course I don't see that happening.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

You may find some if you open your mind.

Of course I don't see that happening.

You need to have an open mind to see.......

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Go figure, you had something else to say.

Yes, I enjoy having my views questioned and challenged by someone that has an open mind. I'll save my breath for those people.

You may find some if you open your mind.

Of course I don't see that happening.

Ouch. Ok, reply again so you can have the last word.

There are plenty of people I know with open minds that I spar with over issues, and I meet a few more every month.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Go figure, you had something else to say.

Yes, I enjoy having my views questioned and challenged by someone that has an open mind. I'll save my breath for those people.

Be careful with dismissing anyone you say doesn't have an "open mind." It becomes very easy to marginalize more and more people when they won't agree with you, leading to more and more view points ignored by you, the one professing an open mind.

It's very similar to the "you're free to say anything you want, as long as you agree with me" trap.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Go figure, you had something else to say.

Yes, I enjoy having my views questioned and challenged by someone that has an open mind. I'll save my breath for those people.

Be careful with dismissing anyone you say doesn't have an "open mind." It becomes very easy to marginalize more and more people when they won't agree with you, leading to more and more view points ignored by you, the one professing an open mind.

It's very similar to the "you're free to say anything you want, as long as you agree with me" trap.

Just because someone doesn't agree with me doesn't mean I label them as close minded. Please do not make that assumption.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[mcrocker 0]

Quote

Exactly. The people want a fun, personable president with wars and bombs and stuff. Who wants a boring, long-winded guy who talks about numbers? Numbers are for pencil-necked geeks. We want a president who will kick the world's ass!

Can I get a Hell-Yeah!

GET-R-DONE!

[Ron 10]

Quote

there are no military experts who dispute it, perhaps you should spend some time at a military command school such as the Air War/Air Command and Staff College/ Army Command and Staff and study the plans for the invasion of Japan and the captured plans and post war interviews of Japanese officers who prepared for it's defense.

the only people who still dispute it are liberal art humanitarian scholars who have never seen War at all, and do not understand military necessity or the Bushido mindset...believe me i've had this argument with many of them throughout college. All their arguments crumble when faced with documented facts and post war interviews from the military institutions that make a point to study warfare and learn lessons from past conflicts.

are you going to participate in your funeral and get into a plane loaded with explosives? If you answer 'no' and cant imagine why anyone would, don’t pretend you understand the mindset or resolve of a culture that has no problem with it...

WOW you and I agree on something.....I guess it had to happen at some point.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

there are no military experts who dispute it

You mean like Eisenhower

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...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


Or Admiral William D, Leahy?

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

Or MacArthur?

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

or John McCloy?

(Assistant Sec. of War)
"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500.

For a dozen or so more, read on...

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Ron 10]

Quote

You mean like Eisenhower

You mean guys that were higher ups in "tradititional army". The same kind of Army that would not be needed?

Find some modern military experts that disagree.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Did you read the quotes. They all pretty much said that Japan was ready to surrender, the only condition they wanted was to keep the Emperror. We wouldn't agree to that, so we bombed them. Then they surrendured and we let them keep the Emperor.


Edit - And I'm suprised no one jumped all over me for saying FDR dropped the bombs.

[headoverheels 334]

So, did anyone actually watch the show? I channel-changed through just as Kerry was leaving.

[PhillyKev 0]

Oh, and find me any military leaders at the time that thought it WAS a good idea. The decision to drop it was made by non-military policy decision makers.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

So, did anyone actually watch the show? I channel-changed through just as Kerry was leaving.

I have the majority of it on my Tivo

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Find some modern military experts that disagree.

"Careful scholarly treatment of the records and manuscripts opened over the past few years has greatly enhanced our understanding of why the Truman administration used atomic weapons against Japan. Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but critical questions have been answered. The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it." (Emphasis added.)

The author of that statement is not a revisionist; he is J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Nor is he alone in that opinion. Walker is summarizing the findings of modern specialists in his literature review in the Winter 1990 issue of Diplomatic History.

---------------------------------

Indeed, as early as 1946 the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, in its report Japan's Struggle to End the War, concluded that "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

Similarly, a top-secret April 1946 War Department study, Use of Atomic Bomb on Japan, declassified during the 1970's but brought to broad public attention only in 1989, found that "the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies." This official document judged that Russia's early-August entry into the war "would almost certainly have furnished this pretext, and would have been sufficient to convince all responsible leaders that surrender was unavoidable." The study concluded that even an initial November 1945 landing on the island of southern Japanese island of Kyushu would have been only a "remote" possibility and that the full invasion of Japan in the spring of 1946 would not have occurred.

-------------------------------------

Military specialists who have examined Japanese decision-making have added to the modern understanding that the bombing was unnecessary. For instance, political scientist Robert Pape's study, "Why Japan Surrendered," which appeared in the Fall 1993 issue of International Security, details Japan's military vulnerability, particularly its shortages of everything from ammunition to fuel to trained personnel: "Japan's military position was so poor that its leaders would likely have surrendered before invasion, and at roughly the same time in August 1945, even if the United States had not employed strategic bombing or the atomic bomb." In this situation, Pape stresses, "The Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9 raised Japan's military vulnerability to a very high level. The Soviet offensive ruptured Japanese lines immediately, and rapidly penetrated deep into the rear.

Since the Kwantung Army was thought to be Japan's premier fighting force, this had a devastating effect on Japanese calculations of the prospects for home island defense." Pape adds, "If their best forces were so easily sliced to pieces, the unavoidable implication was that the less well-equipped and trained forces assembled for [the last decisive home island battle] had no chance of success against American forces that were even more capable than the Soviets."

[PhillyKev 0]

Oh, and here's some bibliograhpical references from the US Army War College regarding the lower casualty estimates for a land invasion.

"Casualty Projections for the U.S. Invasions of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications," The Journal of Military History, 61 (July 1997), 521; and Ralph Capio, "FDR and Truman: Continuity and Context in the A-Bomb Decision," Airpower Journal, 9 (Fall 1995), 56.

[Zenister 0]

so do you believe those opinions to be militarily or politically derived? there is a difference

it is possible political concessions could have alleviated the needs of military necessity. But the Japanese political system is not simply a matter of appeasing the emperor.

Quote

Actually, the Allied terms only offered "sovereignty" for the Japanese nation, not the dynasty per se. The rulers of the island were insisting (as one Japanese diplomat confirmed) that there would be no change in the political institutions of imperial Japan, even if no Japanese empire was left standing to rule.

Without those concessions from the part of the politicians the military alternative to a second bombing was invasion.

have you researched the price of invasion yet? the second bomb was much cheaper in total loses than an invasion. btw... go find a few quotes from the remaining Japanese generals or members of their army to see how 'ready' they really were to surrender? My sensei was personally ready to die in defense of his homeland, why should i believe the rest of the country was not? You mistake a great deal of the Japanese culture and warrior class if you think the single instance was enough to convince their entire culture as was necessary, not just the Emperor

Quote

On 15 August, Hirohito made his first and last radio broadcast to his nation: ''The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage. [Military defeat, per se, was never mentioned.] Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb taking the toll of many innocent lives, Should we continue to fight, it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

you do understand that at the time the Japanese considered themselves the only 'human' civilization? it took two bombs for them to realize there was nothing they could do to prevent it from happening again....

hindsight is a wonderful thing, particularly when your wishing you had not killed as many people as you did, and perhaps regretting decisions made in the moment, but that doesn’t make them any less necessary.

We can certainly quibble over target, there were several alternative military targets that could have been used instead to demonstrate the futility in fighting, I'd certainly regret intentionally targeting a city when a military port would have served as well, but then who's decision was that i wonder?? Could it be the politicians?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

My sensei was personally ready to die in defense of his homeland, why should i believe the rest of the country was not? You mistake a great deal of the Japanese culture and warrior class if you think the single instance was enough to convince their entire culture as was necessary, not just the Emperor

The Emperor was ready to surrender and ORDER his people to do the same. Are you saying they wouldn't have obeyed their living god?

Quote

hindsight is a wonderful thing

What does that have to do with all the military leaders opposed to it before hand? You are the one claiming that modern military schools say it was the right thing. That's not only hindsite, it's incorrect.

Quote

I'd certainly regret intentionally targeting a city when a military port would have served as well, but then who's decision was that i wonder?? Could it be the politicians?

Exactly the point. The entire reason, motivation, and decision makers for dropping the bombs was politcal. Had NOTHING to do with military tactics.

[Ron 10]

Quote

The consensus among scholars is that the bomb was not needed to avoid an invasion of Japan and to end the war within a relatively short time. It is clear that alternatives to the bomb existed and that Truman and his advisers knew it." (Emphasis added.)

I said MILITARY experts.

Quote

the Japanese leaders had decided to surrender and were merely looking for sufficient pretext to convince the die-hard Army Group that Japan had lost the war and must capitulate to the Allies." This official document judged that Russia's early-August entry into the war "would almost certainly have furnished this pretext, and would have been sufficient to convince all responsible leaders that surrender was unavoidable."

All already covered....They may have wanted to surrender, but they could not. They had plenty of time to answer the Potsdam accord, but the first response to it was Aug 10, the day AFTER the second bomb.

Quote

"Japan's military position was so poor that its leaders would likely have surrendered before invasion, and at roughly the same time in August 1945, even if the United States had not employed strategic bombing or the atomic bomb." In this situation, Pape stresses, "The Soviet invasion of Manchuria on August 9 raised Japan's military vulnerability to a very high level. The Soviet offensive ruptured Japanese lines immediately, and rapidly penetrated deep into the rear.

Quote

According to Marshall: "We bad to assume that a force of 2.5 million Japanese would fight to the death as they did on all those islands we [already] attacked. . . . We felt this despite what [Army Air Force] generals with cigars in their mouths [an obvious reference to Curtis LeMay] had to say about bombing the Japanese into submission. We killed 100,000 Japanese in one raid in one night, but it didn't mean a thing insofar as actually beating the Japanese."

Quote

U.S. Army prepared to attack thousands of eaves manned by "determined and fanatical [soldiers] whom we would have to exterminate, almost man by man."

But, according to one Army study, it "was the single weapon [the atomic bomb] hitherto unused which assuredly can decrease the cost in American lives and should materially shorten the war."

Quote

Japan stripped Honshu of assets to build up Kyushu, where. 900,000 soldiers (ten times as many as fought on Okinawa) were ready to "inflict severe losses on the enemy when he invades Japan."

Quote

Japanese officials immediately recognized that Potsdam was far more lenient than generally expected and softer than the terms imposed on Germany -- which was never offered any terms at all. The Japanese peace faction tried to persuade the emperor that, ipso facto, the document meant the abandonment of unconditional surrender. The military faction considered the document proof that America's will to fight had eroded and demanded its unequivocal rejection to solidify morale inside Japanese Army ranks. ("For the enemy [the Allies] to say something like that means circumstances have arisen that force them also to end the war.")

Quote

On 10 August, after America dropped the only other atomic bomb in its arsenal-but warned of "a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth" - the emperor overruled the Imperial Japanese Army. The Japanese Army still had 2.35 million men under arms inside Japan, not having suffered the massive devastation that had been inflicted on the Japanese Air Force and Navy. In fact, the Japanese sneered at their erstwhile Axis ally for surrendering when only some 2.5 million Russians had fought their way through Berlin. The Germans lacked the "Bushido" tradition, commented the Japanese press. Now, the imperial armed forces pleaded for the chance to "find life in death ... .. If we are prepared to sacrifice 20,000,000 Japanese lives in a special attack [kamikaze] effort, victory shall be ours!"

And even the Japanese knew it:

Quote

The emperor could now annul the unwritten constitution and capitulate without challenging the valor of the Japanese Army. One member of the peace faction would confidentially tell an American interrogator that the atomic bomb "was a good excuse" for surrender

Even the Emperor says it:

Quote

On 15 August, Hirohito made his first and last radio broadcast to his nation:''The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage. [Military defeat, per se, was never mentioned.] Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb taking the toll of many innocent lives, Should we continue to fight, it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Lest the "whole nation be reduced to ashes" by the hundred atomic bombs America was thought to have, the imperial government accepted the Potsdam Declaration,

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[PhillyKev 0]

Guess you missed this one J. Samuel Walker, chief historian of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the US Army War college.

I'm not disputing that dropping the bomb worked. But like Iraq, there was another solution. Potsdam called for the end of the Emperor, which was not acceptable to him or his people. That's why they didn't accept it. After we dropped the bombs, we let them surrender and retain the emperor anyway. If we would have made that concession in the first place they WOULD have surrendered and the Emperor, their living God, would have ordered them to do so.