15
   

Italian Cruise Ship Disaster

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 04:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
My memory from history class is that this was because factions of the Japs refused to comply with the capitulation
Two issues.
1. We were sure that certain factions would not comply with the emperors demand and

2we didnt have any more nukes
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 04:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
oralloy was the codespeak we gave to super enriched uranium. I guess its why the A2k handle was chosen.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:15 pm
@farmerman,
I see. Thank u for that information.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:18 pm
@JTT,
DAVID wrote:
I cheerfully stand by what I wrote.
JTT wrote:
OmSig's move to perfect spelling illustrates just how fearful he is about his knowledge of the English language.
I ' m a little surprized that u have not attacked my usage.
I was expecting u to do so.

I don 't mind playing with u; its harmless.





David
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:27 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
I have posted on the subject of Hiroshima before, but not now, it's late. I'll talk about it in the morning.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 06:29 pm
@izzythepush,
Yea; its even too late
for Nagasaki.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:16 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
R u a poet ?


No. I wish.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:18 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
actually, we nukd them with oralloy and fat boy and then, even when they surrendered, we bombed em with conventional bombs two more times.


Well, they hadn't quite surrendered. They had finally made a surrender offer, but the offer came tied to a provision that we guarantee Hirohito's prerogatives as sovereign ruler of Japan.

Since those prerogatives included Hirohito having unlimited dictatorial power, we were not inclined to grant that guarantee, and we replied back that Hirohito was going to be subordinate to MacArthur.

Japan waited a few more days before agreeing to those terms, and it was in this time that the additional bombing occurred.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:19 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
we didnt have any more nukes


Yes and no. Since we were dropping them the very moment each one was ready for use, technically we were always out of them. But had the war continued there would have been a lot more on the way.

When Japan made their first surrender offer, they were about a week away from having a third A-bomb dropped on them (probably on Tokyo because a number of important US military officials had been pressing for it).

The shipping of the plutonium pit was delayed a for few days to give them some breathing room since they had begun to talk surrender, so when they finally did surrender a few days later, they were still about a week away.


Had the war continued, after dropping the third A-bomb on them, we would have started saving up A-bombs so we could use a dozen of them all at once to clear the beaches ahead of our invasion.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:42 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
The fact is, Japan refused to surrender, so we nuked them until they surrendered. Once they surrendered we stopped nuking them.


The facts are always more complicated than the flimsy propaganda you so willingly swallow, Oralboy. [There's still some on your chin, by the way.]

You didn't nuke them until they surrendered. You nuked them until you ran out of bombs. There's a substantial difference there. Had they continued, you would have been in the same position you were before you committed these horrendous war crimes.

The bombs were dropped because the US held highly racist views of the Japanese and the US wanted to impress upon the USSR just what a powerful weapon they had.

They didn't want the USSR invading Japan. They wanted it and all of SE Asia for themselves to pillage. Just as they had been pillaging it before the war. Now the big difference was that all the European colonial powers were too damaged by the war to maintain their colonies. As it always has been, the US wanted to steal wealth from the poorer countries of the world and it was, as it always has been, more than willing to slaughter millions to line its pockets.

How immoral could you possibly be? The short answer - as immoral as the US has been since its inception. The greed just accelerated during the latter part of the 19th century.

A small aside - one has to wonder just where the US would be if they had had to make it on their own, ie. if they hadn't stolen so much from so many.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 07:59 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Both A-bombs were dropped on military targets.


The propaganda relentlessly dribbles off your chin.

Quote:
* In a 16 minute video film in which the crew of the Enola Gay are allowed to speak at length about why they believe the atomic bombings were justified, pilot Col. Paul Tibbits asserts that Hiroshima was "definitely a military objective." Nowhere in the exhibit is this false assertion balanced by contrary information.

Hiroshima was chosen as a target precisely because it had been very low on the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing, and therefore was a pristine target on which to measure the destructive powers of the atomic bomb.[11] Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio. James Conant, a member of the Interim Committee that advised President Truman, defined the target for the bomb as a "vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."[12] There were indeed military factories in Hiroshima, but they lay on the outskirts of the city. Nevertheless, the Enola Gay bombardier's instructions were to target the bomb on the center of this civilian city.


I believe that it was in John Dower's book - the bomb's dead center was directed upon the Shinaii [sp?] Hospital.

Quote:
the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing,


The conventional bombing was a series of war crimes as evil as the A bombs. Firebombing, aimed precisely at civilians.

This even after this;

Quote:
Appeal of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on Aerial Bombardment of Civilian Populations, September 1, 1939

The President of the United States to the Governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland and His Britannic Majesty, September 1, 1939

The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted, hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in, the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances, undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I request an immediate reply.


FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT

http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#E
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 08:44 pm
@JTT,
I'll say this without rancor JTT.

Sometimes....
Quote:
The propaganda relentlessly dribbles off your chin.


Roosevelt might have been a bit naive when he made that appeal but when Truman took the reins he had seen 7 years of terror bombing by the Japanese Imperial Navy; not to speak of the Blitz and the Stuka attacks on civilian populations in Poland and Russia. He had no qualms about "collateral damage"

Wiki
Quote:
In character with the Japanese approach to air warfare, the bombing of Chongqing was focused almost entirely on the civilian population, thus it can be seen as an early example of terror bombing. In the first two days of the campaign, the raids of May 1939 killed more than five thousand Chinese civilians.[1]

Two months later, after tens of thousands of deaths, in retaliation for firebombing, the United States embargoed the export of airplane parts to Japan, thus imposing its first economic sanction against Japan.[1]

On 5 June 1941, the Japanese flew more than 20 sorties, bombing the city for 3 hours. About four thousand residents, who hid in a tunnel, were asphyxiated.[2]


Sorry Bud. Swing and a miss.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 08:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
My father took Enola Gay back to Washington with the film from the baker bikini bomb test, as head of photography. My father's view of the atom bomb was no doubt complex; he was in on some or many manhattan project meetings, knew Oppenheimer, etc. I'd have to search but sure he was at Trinity.

Don't flick Enola Gay at me, David. I have a photo of him at a dc meeting, with him rubbing his eyes.

I don't care who you were honored to meet.
ossobuco
 
  0  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:01 pm
@ossobuco,
Nuts, I posted. Bah!

And on a thread about a cruise gone bad.

panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:14 pm
@ossobuco,
Gee osso, you're gonna have to thumb this thread down now Wink
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:19 pm
@panzade,
Me?
No.
What are you saying?
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:21 pm
@ossobuco,
I thought you were saying you didn't mean to post on this thread...that now it would show in your "my posts" section. No?
Perhaps it's late.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:26 pm
@panzade,
I was alluding that I have tried not to post on this major diversion on a cruise disaster thread. I know well where I'm posting. I was posting directly to David with his enola gay thing. Which I'm sorry about, since his post was part of the grande diversion.

Perhaps it's late for you too.
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:28 pm
@panzade,
A thread about some poor folk dying has become another political bunfight?

Good heavens.

I knew it had when I saw some of the people posting, but had to look to believe.

Talk about king Charles' head!
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2012 09:29 pm
@ossobuco,
One post more or less won't make it crazier.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/26/2022 at 06:49:55