wolfriverjoe 1,523 #51 August 10, 2017 GeorgiaDonQuoteCould have targeted Tokyo but Truman chose the two smaller cities instead. Tokyo had already suffered extensive damage due to conventional bombing and the resulting firestorms. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen in no small part because they had not been targeted to that point, and so the damage from the nuclear explosions would be more obvious. In other words they were experiments as well as military targets. Please note that I do think there were valid military reasons to use the bomb under the circumstances of the time. Don Actually, the bomb raids on Tokyo were primarily incendiary. The allies saw how much of the construction was flammable (wood and paper and such) and realized that it would be easier to burn it than blow it up. They were correct in that assessment. Estimates for casualties run into 6 figures. The raid in March is generally considered to be the most destructive of all of the war (and of all time). Wiki clicky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo And as has been repeatedly been discussed, there were multiple reasons for the use of nukes. Some were directly about the war, some were about other interests. And the use of the nukes was also multi-faceted. Some of it was direct (both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets), some was psychological, to induce the Japanese to surrender. I don't think it was an easy decision, but I also believe it to have been the "best of a selection of bad options" given the circumstances of the time."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nolhtairt 0 #52 August 10, 2017 wolfriverjoe***QuoteCould have targeted Tokyo but Truman chose the two smaller cities instead. Tokyo had already suffered extensive damage due to conventional bombing and the resulting firestorms. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen in no small part because they had not been targeted to that point, and so the damage from the nuclear explosions would be more obvious. In other words they were experiments as well as military targets. Please note that I do think there were valid military reasons to use the bomb under the circumstances of the time. Don Actually, the bomb raids on Tokyo were primarily incendiary. The allies saw how much of the construction was flammable (wood and paper and such) and realized that it would be easier to burn it than blow it up. They were correct in that assessment. Estimates for casualties run into 6 figures. The raid in March is generally considered to be the most destructive of all of the war (and of all time). Wiki clicky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo And as has been repeatedly been discussed, there were multiple reasons for the use of nukes. Some were directly about the war, some were about other interests. And the use of the nukes was also multi-faceted. Some of it was direct (both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets), some was psychological, to induce the Japanese to surrender. I don't think it was an easy decision, but I also believe it to have been the "best of a selection of bad options" given the circumstances of the time. Agreed. War is hell. The other sumbitch is trying to kill you. What do you do? Make his ass quit, or kill him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #53 August 10, 2017 nolhtairt***************Sounds like you are holding up the interment camps as a positive example. Please correct me if I am wrong. Re-read my post. "It was pretty bad then". Was it the right thing to do? No, but they went with what they felt they had to do. When you're dealing with motherfuckers going "BANZAI!!!" going suicide dive bombing in their planes, you realize what they're willing to do to kill you. Radical islamists aren't much different. You speak of this as if before the war we knew they were going to start using Kamikaze pilots. I was referring to the Japanese. Just to be clear. Their end goal was to kill you and if it meant they were going to die to do it, so be it. Now tell me a radical muslim who hates America isn't going to do the same thing, albeit a different method. You think putting muslims into internment camps will result in less extremism towards the United States? LOL no. I used history as an example. We have the CIA and FBI to keep an eye on anybody they deem suspicious or have intel on. That's the best way to do it. Catch them before they act. Kill or capture them if they act. Ha! Recently declassified documents reveal that the FBI and the CIA both had Lee Harvey Oswald under surveillance in September 1963. This was NOT revealed to the Warren Commission.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #54 August 10, 2017 nolhtairt******Better to shock a whole country into surrendering rather than have a million plus die in a brutal invasion. Besides, Russia (who we didn't trust) had to be put in their place and not get involved. We picked the lesser of two evils. It was the hardest decision Harry S Truman likely ever made. So hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians had to be killed, burned or given radiation poisoning to send a message to Stalin and that's ok, and doesn't reflect badly on Americans as a whole. It was a horrible thing to do to be sure. But it did end WWII. Yep, Americans were willing to use the single most powerful weapon of mass murder ever devised to end the war. How do you deal with white people when you realise those are the lengths they'll go to? If locking up people with Japanese DNA because the Japanese army used some (tactically effective) kamikaze pilots is justified....Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #55 August 10, 2017 How does locking up civilians, on the other side of the planet, with zero access to aircraft and no flight training, make you safer other than the false "feels"??? Did you think the Nazis did the right thing by locking up and murdering those dangerous Jewish people too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #56 August 10, 2017 normiss How does locking up civilians, on the other side of the planet, with zero access to aircraft and no flight training, make you safer other than the false "feels"?? Why are you asking me this?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #57 August 10, 2017 Apparently because of how forums work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,468 #58 August 10, 2017 Hi jakee, Quotethe Japanese army used some (tactically effective) kamikaze pilots is justified.... While I was only five years old at the time, my mother & other relatives were adults. IMO it had absolutely nothing to do with Kamikazes. For the most part ( from numerous books that I have read ), MacArthur told Truman that it would cost 1 million American lives to invade Japan & conquer them. That, along with the hatred after Pearl Harbor & how they treated POWs, made it an easy decision for Truman. Jerry Baumchen Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,275 #59 August 10, 2017 QuoteIMO it had absolutely nothing to do with Kamikazes. For the most part ( from numerous books that I have read ), MacArthur told Truman that it would cost 1 million American lives to invade Japan & conquer them. That, along with the hatred after Pearl Harbor & how they treated POWs, made it an easy decision for Truman. Yup, long bloody slow invasion, or quick strike with the fancy new weapon he never got to use on the Germans. No question, I've always felt he did what he had to do and that I would have done the same.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 895 #60 August 11, 2017 God damn right wingers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JerryBaumchen 1,468 #61 August 11, 2017 Hi Mark, Re: Sebastian Gorka I've said it before on here: How can they come up with so many loony-toons? Jerry Baumchen PS) Of course, it is the liberal left that is attacking mosques. I mean, who else could it be? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,275 #62 August 11, 2017 normiss God damn right wingers! This whole story misses a basic point. Almost all terrorism today is right wing. There is hardly no one more right wing than a fundamentalist. No matter what flavour of fundamentalism they pretend to follow. Islamic terrorism is right wing terrorism. It's been quite a while since much terrorism came out of the left. Maybe PETA extremists, and some of the more recent ambush killings of LEOs can be considered as coming from the left.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,595 #63 August 11, 2017 QuoteIMO it had absolutely nothing to do with Kamikazes. No-one said it did. That's not the conversation we're having.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,182 #64 October 13, 2017 He peppered a mosque with bullets - and his life changed http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41601034/he-peppered-a-mosque-with-bullets-and-his-life-changed Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
