|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
 Posted - 06/04/2002 : 14:09:33 [Permalink]
|
It's a fact that the media and the U.S. government do not care to know.
quote:
You give us a guestimate? 
Got any facts?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/04/2002 : 14:40:00 [Permalink]
|
No Gorgo, that is your opinion[i] rather than a [i]fact.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 02:50:51 [Permalink]
|
Doesn't make much difference, though does it? One dead is murder, and you'd find some way to excuse millions.
quote:
No Gorgo, that is your opinion[i] rather than a [i]fact.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 11:08:52 [Permalink]
|
Donnie B.> Claim 2: If Hiroshima was an important military target, why had it not been bombed by conventional means prior to August 1945?
I don't have any references handy but from memory, I know of two factors.
Prior to about mid-1944, with the advent of the B-29 and the conquest of Tinian and other close-in bases, Hiroshima was out of range for American bombers (as was much of Japan's "mainland"). After it became available for targetting, it was placed lower in priority than other potential targets (such as Tokyo). It was certainly on the target list, and would have had its turn eventually.
After about April 1945, it was at the top of the nuclear target list, and as such it became off-limits to conventional bombing because the Target Committee wanted a pristine test-bed to measure the effects of the bomb.
But thank you for precise and clear-minded points and arguments.
You're welcome; I wish a few others would try for a more reasoned tone of argument.
I, for my part, have far better things to do, than repeat myself infinitely. My wall makes more sense. I'm sure there is a sceptics forum somewhere, were people can debate civilised, and may do so, without being subject to such childish insults and accusations.
I will look for it.
So, sorry Garrette, I won't be here when you get back.
I hope you change your mind and return to the debate. It's disappointing when a major participant bows out and leaves the field to his more-dogged opponents. It gives the impression that any argument goes to the persistent, rather than the person with the strongest position.
If it's any consolation, I entered this debate with a rather vague opinion that Hiroshima, at least, was fully justifiable in the context of its time. The more I think about it, the more I begin to see it as belonging to (at least) the "war crime" camp. Your arguments (along with a couple others') have moved me that direction. So this debater, at least, is not set in stone, opinion-wise.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 11:20:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
It's airforce became ineffective not from a lack of planes, but from a lack of trained pilots.
If you kill the pilot the combat missions will not be flown until another pilot is trained-a matter of weeks.
If you blow up the planes and destroy the ability to make planes no more combat missions will be flown until a new factory and all the equiptment in it is build-that could take months if not years. It is much better stragegy to destroy the enemy's ability to continue making war...
Every military history of WWII that I've run across would contradict you on this assertion. Even after Midway, Japan had far greater naval power in the Pacific than the US did (including carriers).
It's true that the US outproduced Japan thereafter, but the truly irreplacible resource was the highly-trained pilots and naval aircrews that were lost at Midway. Many of these had experience dating back many years (in Japan's combat in China and Manchuria), and most were veterans of Pearl Harbor -- which made the victory all the sweeter for the Americans. Another factor was that Japan's pilot training was not as sophisticated or effective as that of the US, and pressing needs often forced them to rush new recruits through training and into active duty. The US combat flight schools were more thorough. It's something of a tribute to American military leadership that they were allowed to maintain those high standards even in the wake of Pearl Harbor and the subsequent losses.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 12:26:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's airforce became ineffective not from a lack of planes, but from a lack of trained pilots.
I think this point is kinda mote. Yes, their best Navy pilots were killed in the third attack on the Hawaiian Islands (Midway is part of Hawaii) but their Airforce was relatively untouched as our Marines can atest to.
The fact that they didn't have the quality of pilot training is not the point I was making.
I was arguing the suitability of bombing war industry plants. Without the aircraft construction plants there would be no new planes nor were there spare parts to keep the planes they had in the air.
The pilot may very well be the most important part of the plane but without the machine it matters little if he is an ace or a duffer. He's not going to fly.
quote:
I hope you change your mind and return to the debate. It's disappointing when a major participant bows out and leaves the field to his more-dogged opponents. It gives the impression that any argument goes to the persistent, rather than the person with the strongest position.
The blonde is twisting you around her little finger. Her position was hardly the strongest since it ignored the context of the entire second word war and based it self mostly on petulance and name calling. Name calling in the same blurbs she complained about immature name calling. Ignoring responses to her questions because she didn't like them and then demanding that she didn't get responsed to. Willfully misinterperting responses even after third parties corrected her.
And then defameing everyone who didn't agree with her because there was something wrong with us for not following her logic. We could follow it just fine. But we found it faulty and based on prejudices instead of facts.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 13:30:49 [Permalink]
|
The basis of Omega's argument that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity were that she believes Japan was ready to surrender anyway. She then proceeded to quote a few sources from the time that supported this view (while ignoring questions as to why she thought other authorities of the time were lying/wrong).
Here is why I think she is wrong:
The Potsdam Declaration, calling for Japan's unconditional surrender, July 26th, 1945:
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/1945/450726-potsdam.html
I would be surprised were anyone to claim that any of these conditions is unfair or improper. In fact, I think they are amazingly benevolent!
Here is what the Japanese Ambassador to the Soviet Union, Mr. Sato, said in a telegram to the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Togo on July 30th, 1945:
quote:
the three countries --Great Britain, the United States, and China--issued a joint declaration against Japan on the 26th, pressing unconditional surrender on Japan. Unconditional surrender is, after all, out of the question for the Japanese Government.
(emphasis mine)
The terms were offered, they were refused, the bomb was dropped, they didn't surrender (a matter of contention; anyone have any details about the time between the 6th and 9th?), a second bomb was dropped, they surrendered.
The two targets were military targets. We warned Nagasaki what was coming. We gave them back their homeland after it was over.
What else needs to be said?
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 13:54:42 [Permalink]
|
This is interesting, thank you.
As I understand it, the very conditions that Japan wanted, namely the safety of the emperor, served Western interests, and so the ultimate surrender was no different than what Japan wanted before thousands of people died. There was no need for the bomb, as Truman knew that Japan would surrender, knew that Japan was finished without a lot of trouble, and knew that he was murdering thousands of civilians.
What you almost said was that no one could give those kind of ridiculous conditions for surrender and back down from them. Truman had to save face, even though using the emeror to rule Japan for them was a convenience they couldn't pass up.
There's nothing wrong with a little immaturity, by the way. It don't hurt nothin'.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 15:19:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ridiculous conditions for surrender
What do you believe are ridiculous about them?
[are? is?  ]
------------
fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 06/05/2002 15:20:40 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 15:25:44 [Permalink]
|
Those were very generous conditions. The Japanese had some of their own conditions you know. I did not find them to be nearly as generous since they included enslavement, turning your women into whores and torture.
The US could have been much, much harsher. You should check out the Soviet's WWII policy for surrender. Oh wait...they didn't have one. They were not into taking prisoners.
I have no idea where you get the notion that Truman had to save face. His army was kicking the Japanese armies ass. The entire issue was about the Japanese saving face or how much face they would be able to save. You don't need to make crazy stuff up Gorgo. or you wouldn't if you had any real information to share.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 16:06:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As I understand it, the very conditions that Japan wanted, namely the safety of the emperor, served Western interests, and so the ultimate surrender was no different than what Japan wanted before thousands of people died.
The Japanese conditions did not include total disarmament, occupation, or dismanteling of their armament factories.
It did not include surrender, merely a cease fire.
Your argument that The Potsdam Declaration is the same as the Japanese proposal begs the question of why--when (A)it came with the condition of accept it or Japan will suffer complete devastation and (B) it was what they always wanted--why did they reject it and accept the devastion?
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 16:10:48 [Permalink]
|
Well, if you could understand anything but the voices in your own head, you would have read and understood my post that explained that in this thread.
quote:
I have no idea where you get the notion that Truman had to save face. His army was kicking the Japanese armies ass. The entire issue was about the Japanese saving face or how much face they would be able to save. You don't need to make crazy stuff up Gorgo. or you wouldn't if you had any real information to share.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5311 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 16:14:59 [Permalink]
|
No, the one thing that Japan was holding out for was the safety of the emperor. Truman knew this, and decided to murder thousands rather than lose face.
quote:
[quote]Your argument that The Potsdam Declaration is the same as the Japanese proposal
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 16:19:26 [Permalink]
|
Man do you ever have it backwards.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 06/05/2002 : 16:30:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, the one thing that Japan was holding out for was the safety of the emperor.
We all just read the The Potsdam Declaration. No where does it demand the removal of the Emperor.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
