The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

@layman,

layman wrote:

The military ordered that cites like Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and a few others selected by the "target committee" NOT be bombed, notwithstanding all these ominous military threats which you say were the primary objective.

They did it because they want to nuke a "pristine" cities no there would be no confusion about just how much damage it would do, all by itself.

Not Nagasaki. The reason why it was mostly pristine was because it was difficult to find on the radar that they used to guide their nighttime incendiary raids, and so was largely immune to them.

I also have some questions as to whether the nighttime incendiary raids would have done much damage to the shipyards even if the bombers had been able to find their way there.

But Hiroshima and Kokura Arsenal were certainly held back for the A-bombs. You're right about that.

0 Replies

One of the principal arguments used to condemn the nukings (advanced by Eisenhower himself, as I recall) was that Japan was basically defenseless and was on the verge of collapse anyway.

As if continued fire-bombings by "Bombs away" Lemay would have somehow been preferable, eh? Many more civilians died from previous indiscriminate fire-bombing than from the A-bombs.

And of course a main feature of our strategy was to convince the Japs that we had hundreds of A-bombs that we could just drop seriatim indefinitely. A long siege, would have, as noted in a prior post, presumably resulted in about 200,000 dead civilians per month in the far east. Dropping the nukes was the best course, even if that entailed the mass slaughter of civilians.

Especially after the way they had treated civilians in China and elsewhere, the world at large had no sympathy for the zealous "civilians" of Japan.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

just re-read the first few posts

this about covers it eh

Robert Gentel wrote:

It's simple: don't be a shithead.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

One of the principal arguments used to condemn the nukings (advanced by Eisenhower himself, as I recall) was that Japan was basically defenseless and was on the verge of collapse anyway.

Except they weren't defenseless. The casualties that we were expecting to come from an invasion were equal to everything that we had suffered in WWII up to that point.

In other words, had Japan not surrendered, Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have marked the half-way point of the war instead of marking the end of the war.

We still have purple heart medals that were made in anticipation of the invasion of Japan because the Korean and Vietnam Wars combined caused fewer casualties than what we were expecting to come from the invasion of Japan.

layman wrote:

As if continued fire-bombings by "Bombs away" Lemay would have somehow been preferable, eh? Many more civilians died from previous indiscriminate fire-bombing than from the A-bombs.

Actually after early disasters like Tokyo, Japanese civilians had learned to take us at our word when we first dropped warning leaflets and then sent a large group of bombers towards their city at night. They got good at fleeing their cities when our bombers approached.

layman wrote:

And of course a main feature of our strategy was to convince the Japs that we had hundreds of A-bombs that we could just drop seriatim indefinitely.

That was actually the case. We were quickly ramping up production and would have been producing ten A-bombs a month by the end of 1945, had the war continued.

We would have shifted to storing up bombs though, and using them en masse to clear away resistance before our invasions. About a dozen would have been used to soften up Japanese resistance to Olympic.

layman wrote:

A long siege, would have, as noted in a prior post, presumably resulted in about 200,000 dead civilians per month in the far east. Dropping the nukes was the best course, even if that entailed the mass slaughter of civilians.

There wasn't going to be a long siege. If Japan had kept refusing to surrender, we were going to invade.

0 Replies

Olivier5 wrote:

It's also a fact that these cities contained many more civilians than soldiers.

Yes. So?

Olivier5 wrote:

I think Layboy documented clearly that the aim was to kill as many people as possible for shock effect.

Come on. Namecalling isn't helpful.

And no. There was a desire for shock effect certainly. But not from numbers of dead civilians. We'd have been happy to have all the civilians flee each city before we destroyed it.

The shock that we desired was for Japan to realize that a single A-bomb could wipe out an entire city.

Olivier5 wrote:

I provided ample evidence that the timing was not "the highest point of the war".

No you didn't. The resistance from Japan was growing greater and greater as the war progressed, and was expected to be catastrophic when we invaded Japan.

Olivier5 wrote:

So your absolute truth has vanished, whether you understand it or not.

That is incorrect. It remains a fact that Hiroshima held tens of thousands of soldiers.

It remains a fact that Hiroshima held a vital military headquarters.

It remains a fact that Nagasaki held huge weapons factories.

It remains a fact that Japan's resistance was growing fiercer all the time, and was expected to grow much worse.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The shock that we desired was for Japan to realize that a single A-bomb could wipe out an entire city.

And therefore that it could anihilate tens of thousands of civilians in one single shot.

City
A city is a place where many people live together.
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City

0 Replies

@layman,

Must admit I agree with that.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

Quote:

That is why the new platform will let anyone create their own community and run it their way.

That's the exciting possibility.

2 Replies

@blatham,

I suspect it's a lost dream.

0 Replies

@blatham,

blatham wrote:

Quote:
That is why the new platform will let anyone create their own community and run it their way.

That's the exciting possibility.

And I thought you folks were champions of "diversity" .

I suspect the monotone thing you seek would quickly become a bore.

3 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

And I thought you folks were champions of "diversity" .

I suspect the monotone thing you seek would quickly become a bore.

Yeah, it's kinda puzzling, eh, George? Why do these cheese-eaters insist on only speaking to the choir and censoring all other ideas as best they can? I'd be bored stiff. Kinda like if you were an angel doing nothing but sitting on a cloud playing a harp all day.

Nietzsche wrote:

"In heaven all the interesting people are missing."

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:

Quote:
That is why the new platform will let anyone create their own community and run it their way.

That's the exciting possibility.

And I thought you folks were champions of "diversity" .

I suspect the monotone thing you seek would quickly become a bore.

I would love an intelligent discussion on the issues of the day with you guys on the right. That's not often what we get here.

2 Replies

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I would love an intelligent discussion on the issues of the day with you guys on the right. That's not often what we get here.

There are people on the US right who do offer good discussion/information. Few of them participate in the site now, and those who are still here don't engage in political debate as they once did. Maybe they're tired of it?

I miss the folks who'd bring in good/interesting/useful links with facts and then offer great debate on those facts. I don't mind opinion offered by those posters. Bring in no facts? I'm not going to have any interest in the opinions.

Maybe it's a website/forum life cycle thing?

0 Replies

@maporsche,

Quote:

I would love an intelligent discussion on the issues of the day with you guys on the right. That's not often what we get here.

Takes two people to tango though...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
I would love an intelligent discussion on the issues of the day with you guys on the right. That's not often what we get here.

Takes two people to tango though...

.

I hope you're not implying that I'm unable to have an intelligent conversation with someone with opposing views...

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

I hope you're not implying that I'm unable to have an intelligent conversation with someone with opposing views...

You're too emotional for that, Ma.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Quote:
That is why the new platform will let anyone create their own community and run it their way.

Quote:
And I thought you folks were champions of "diversity" .
I suspect the monotone thing you seek would quickly become a bore.

Enabling a system whereby you or I or Fred Jones or anyone can build and evolve a discussion community in any manner they might think worthwhile doesn't strike me as a dangerous recipe for totalitarianism. Think of the value that accrues from US states seeking to find their own way.

Obviously, an individual state or a discussion community could head in a totalitarian direction or could wind up, unintentionally, creating an intellectually stultifying framework. But as everyone is free to leave or support or lobby for changes in how a discussion community operates, well, that's not how totalitarian systems work.

1 Reply

@blatham,

Well it's fairly clear that you would prefer to be left alone on your Trump thread; issuing daily "must reads" to your absurdly slavish claques; reaping their applause and presiding with the command authority it often appears you seek. Unfortunately for you this is a public forum and you have to deal with disagreement and occasional challenges, just as do those whose views differ from yours.

That said you are certainly free ( and "enabled") to create your own association, and even a private website to indulge in your fantasy. However, no one is obliged to provide it for you.

It is interesting that most of the complaints about "trolls" here come from intolerant left wing posters such as yourself. I suspect that in many cases you indulge yourself in fantasies about your supposed intellectual superiority and the victimization implied by it. Unfortunately for you, control of the terms of discourse with others is also denied you. They are free to express what they wish..

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

... you have to deal with disagreement and occasional challenges, just as do those whose views differ from yours.

He "deals" with them VERY occasionally, if at all. He puts about 99% of those who he knows are prone to challenge him on ignore, and goes blissfully and ignorantly on his merry way, disseminating his cheese-eating propaganda 24/7.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Could you provide us with a substantive definition of "troll/trolling?

2 Replies

The rules are changing, we are going to start showing the assholes the door

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know