My dad knew Oppenheimer, I'm not sure quite how well. He was in New Mexico from time to time. Unfortunately he died long ago and we can't discuss these matters.
joefromchicago wrote:
A word of advice,
Paaskynen: you will help your credibility immensely if you
don't cite publications issued by Lyndon Larouche.
Thanks Joe, I was in a hurry to go home, so I did not check the origins of the site. I too find LaRouche a controversial, if not creepy, person, but that does not mean he is necessarily wrong about everything. Note that the page I listed just contains reviews of two books, neither of which is written or published by LaRouche.
The point I wished to support (i.e. the Japanese were ready to negotiate surrender, just not unconditionally) with this link has already been supported with more info by other contributors, but you can find plenty more on the Web, like the Bissel Memo at
http://www.historyhappens.net/archival/hironag/hiroshimashad/prospectsforjapan.htm
Thanks for the links Paasky
there is nothing to contradict my contention that the bombing was
a demonstration to the Russians and the world
an experiment using two different types of bomb
irrelevant to the imminent collapse and surrender of Japan.
There is an interesting juxtaposition with the recent Iraq war.
1. Delay the destruction of illegal weapons of mass destruction in Iraq so the war can be fought to destroy "Iraq's illegal wmd"
2. Delay the end of the war against Japan to enable the use of illegal weapons of mass destruction "to end the war on Japan".
Just of passing topical connection, no commentary intendended, just something in which some folks here might take interest:
Interesting story Timber thanks.
I'm not surprised that Sweeney considered bombing Nagasaki necessary. How could he live with himself and function within the Airforce if he did not?
I don't blame the guy, he was as he admits only following orders.
But for me there is no issue here. The atomic bombings took place to influence post war politics, not as a military necessity to defeat Japan.
A few more people had their doubts too
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
no one so far has said it wasnt
Curious Steve ... have you seen
THIS ?
au1929 wrote:do unto others as they have done unto you.
I thought the bible reads "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"
Treat others as you want to be treated yourself. It is for this very reason that international treaties exist and are respected (by many nations, though not so much by the W Bush administration). If we do not treat our enemies with respect for their human rights, we cannot with any authority expect the enemy to treat us right. This is no guarantee that the enemy will respect the rules of engagement or human rights, but one crime has never excused another.
Example: Nazi Germany exterminated 6 million innocent and unarmed Jewish Europeans. did that give European Jews the right to exterminate millions of innocent and unarmed Germans?
Suppose, in an alternative history, that Hitler had gotten his hands on a nuclear weapon and dropped it on Washington or New York with the intent to end the war, would that in any way
not have constituted a war crime?
I agree completely, Paaskynen (and I'm not so sure, if au couldn't think: 'yes, that gave the right'
).
Walter
I don't want to get into a slugging match with you on the subject. However, Germany and the Germans got away almost scott free after WW2. I realize that was because the atrocities committed to all and in every European nation were committed by a small group of Nazi's. The German people knew nothing of this and of were not party to it.
For your information I am not in favor of punishing innocent people
Condemning use of atomic weapons to end Japanese resistance in 1945 as illegal by an appeal to biblical authority is not persuasive.
Neither the Bible, nor any other religious text has, or should, have legal authority. Since the wars of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, the Western world has adopted legal systems that stand quite apart from the injunctions of any religious sect or text. Separation of Church and State is one of the foundations of the United States Constitution. The situation in the so-called Islamic States of Southwest Asia is different. Women can be stoned to death for violating religious taboos. Thieves lose hands in the town square. Public beheading of those condemned by religious leaders is accepted practice. Biblical notions of law and justice are quite properly have now place in the laws of men nor nations.
The old eye-for-an eye injunction originated in the Code of Hanurabi, the first historical legal code we know of. Hanurabi's kingdom was in an area that today we call Iraq. It was then adopted into what later became the Old testament.
"Treat others as you want to be treated yourself. It is for this very reason that international treaties exist and are respected (by many nations, though not so much by the Bush administration)."
Actually, nations tend to respect and abide by their treaties out of self-interest more than anything else. To obtain international conditions favorable to a nation, it will negotiate the best treaty it can for itself. When the treaty no longer serves the purpose for which it was signed, it will be scrapped by one, or both, parties. Treaties are not entered into on the basis of making the world a kinder and gentler place. The parenthetical comment also needs to be challenged. You and others may firmly believe that the United States has violates some treaty, but many others do not. What treaty to you think was violated?
The United States did not initiate aggressive war against Iraq, though that will probably be your contention. The Gulf War was never ended, only suspended upon a series of conditions that were continually avoided and broken in significant ways by Saddam's Iraq. The Gulf War was entered into with UN sanction after Iraq launched its second aggressive war. Violation of the conditions was alone justification for the United States and a coalition of allies to reopen the conflict to insure that Iraq could no longer violate cease-fire conditions. Intelligence that Iraq possessed and continued to produce forbidden terror weapons was widely believed by governments around the world. The Clinton administration believed that Iraq was in violation of the conditions, and made several ineffective forays to try and gain compliance. Saddam obstructed UN inspections in violation of his agreements, and when the UN became more insistent, Saddam kicked them out of the country. Companies in France, Germany and Russia sold forbidden products to Iraq that had military application. Saddam openly praised acts of international terrorism, and paid rewards to the families of suicide bombers. The intelligence may have been faulty because the United States had basically abandoned Humint and covert operations in favor of Elint and satellite surveillance systems, but it was credible to most of the world.
After 9/11, when the United States was clearly justified in acting in self-defense, operations against the terrorist enemy was fully justified under international law. The terrorist networks aren't the clear agents of any single, or combination of nations who openly are waging war. The terrorist enemy mostly obscures and hides its relationship with national governments. Governments who provide sanctuary, support, aid, comfort and other valuable assistance to the terrorists go to great lengths to keep their support secret. Who wants to be the next Taliban government of Afghanistan? Terrorists aren't agents acting under orders from national governments, but some governments with very large musilim populations are secretly the agents of terrorists. That's something that is strongly suspected, but can't be proven for obvious reasons. In the case of Iraq, there were good reasons to believe that Saddam was providing some level of support and aid to international terrorists, and that provided another element justifying unilateral military action by the United States.
Are other supporters of international terrorism at risk of U.S. being targeted by the U.S.? Yep. The risk of of drawing the ire of the U.S. has made it far more dangerous to support international terrorists, so that makes it more difficult for them to operate. Links to terrorists have always been among the greatest secrets of supporting governments, now support must be even more secretive and limited. Prior to Afghanistan and Iraq, some fooled themselves into believing that the US had neither the capability, nor Will to directly utilize its military power. Now they know otherwise, and this also makes it much more dangerous for governments to harbor, encourage and supply the terrorist networks.
because those who support international terrorism now know that the U.S. will bring its military might to bear
Quote:Suppose, in an alternative history, that Hitler had gotten his hands on a nuclear weapon and dropped it on Washington or New York with the intent to end the war, would that in any way not have constituted a war crime?
It was this fear that drove on the scientists of the Manhatten project to complete their work. Although it wasn't an attack on an American city but rather London that was more likely.
German physicists had been right at the forefront of atomic physics at the lead up to the war. The route to the atom bomb was long and expensive. But allied scientists could never discount the possibility that Germany could have found a short cut (they were never exactly short of brain power). It was only at the end of the war when there was mutual astonishment on both sides, that Germany was no where near developing a nuclear weapon, and on behalf of interned German atomic scientists that America had built and used such a weapon against Japan.
Neville Shute, the author of On the Beach, worked for Brit special services (whatever you called them then) in Dubya-Dubya Two. Working with Norwegian soldiers and sailors who had escaped to England in 1940, Shute put together a team which managed to disable the "heavy water" project the Germans had set up at a Norwegian facility. Given that even an optimistic estimate placed development of a weapon several years down the road, Hitler lost interest, and Albert Speer allowed the project to languish. This is not to say that they would have developed a nuclear weapon in time to use it during the war, just that the effort was pretty well abandoned as a production priority by 1942.
Yes good old Adolf. Thank God he was on their side.
He started the war, prolonged it unnecessarily and finally lost it. Politics besides, what a complete sh1t.
The nuclear program might have been exceptional, but his meddling at a tactical level in all sorts of stuff he approached with no knowledge of other than national socialist zeal was probably the straw that broke the camels back with regards to German domination of Europe.
I've always said that Adolf was our best continental ally in that war . . .
We could have killed him. Do you think we were right not to do so?
As long as he was callin' the shots at OKH, he was an invaluable resource. What if someone like Von Ruhnstedt, or Rommel had been in charge, someone who knew what he was doing? It doesn't bear thinking about.
