Survivor of 2 Atomic Bombs Dies at 93 - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

LaRondo · #31 01-07-2010, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I don't understand why they would either. Is this a group of flies we are talking about or just your exaggeration? Was that a group of flies, as you put it at Guadalcanal? Peleliu? Midway and the Kamikaze attacks? Philippines? The list can go on about the "flies" in question but I think you can get the drift.

But to answer your question in a word, safety. Less US lives lost when you destroy major parts of their country and get them to surrender.

Would be curious about your tone of voice, if the situation is/was the other way around.

cmac2012 · #32 01-07-2010, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

The lesser of two choices...??
That's an interesting way of thinking, esp when the other option is based of pure presumption.
I understand that this is the wide spread understanding and how it is been taught to the American people in order to justify what has been done and to think it is ok to kill 200k civilian in a matter of seconds, if we do it.

I dunno man, I think the hawks are right on this one. Japanese soldiers had a religious sort of devotion to fighting to the bitter end, to death that is hard to find a match for in history. The incredibly hard fighting that our guys (my Dad among them) endured fighting just for distant islands gave a good indication of how intractable the fighting was going to be on the main islands.

We humans have never built a weapon that we didn't eventually use. With any luck, the 2 bombs in Japan will be the first and only conflict they were used in.

LaRondo · #33 01-07-2010, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I dunno man, I think the hawks are right on this one. Japanese soldiers had a religious sort of devotion to fighting to the bitter end, to death that is hard to find a match for in history. The incredibly hard fighting that our guys (my Dad among them) endured fighting just for distant islands gave a good indication of how intractable the fighting was going to be on the main islands.

We humans have never built a weapon that we didn't eventually use. With any luck, the 2 bombs in Japan will be the first and only conflict they were used in.

Too many various angles to determine a single view to be right or wrong.
The Japanese devotion for the way they fought is just as righteous as the willingness to drop an atomic bomb or 2 on civilian areas as it's been done.

Maybe "the hawks" knew and may not have been victorious as they were by facing Japanese soldiers in conventional battles.

And yes, there was very clear determination behind the development of the bombs, already during the pretext of The Manhatten Project.

aklim · #34 01-07-2010, 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

What is so special about all those who survived the holocaust of the Nazi concentration camps? Speaking about deserving benefits.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

aklim · #35 01-07-2010, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

There is not much you understand, is there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Would be curious about your tone of voice, if the situation is/was the other way around.

You're baiting, I'm not going to bite. Nice try

cmac2012 · #36 01-07-2010, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Too many various angles to determine a single view to be right or wrong.
The Japanese devotion for the way they fought is just as righteous as the willingness to drop an atomic bomb or 2 on civilian areas as it's been done.

Maybe "the hawks" knew and may not have been victorious as they were by facing Japanese soldiers in conventional battles.

And yes, there was very clear determination behind the development of the bombs, already during the pretext of The Manhattan Project.

It's tough to put ourselves in that environment, IMO. Germany was working on a nuke, Einstein thought so anyway and we now know he was right. Combined with their advanced (for the day) missile tech, if they'd got the bomb first, would have been a different ballgame. One wonders how many nukes they would have used on Allied cities.

The Japanese were pretty harsh in WW2. Not saying they deserved to be nuked but I can see how people at the time could have felt justified in that.

LaRondo · #37 01-07-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.

Nothing but an empty phrase. Fact is, you can't articulate any difference.

LaRondo · #38 01-07-2010, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

You're baiting, I'm not going to bite. Nice try

I am stating, not baiting.

LaRondo · #39 01-07-2010, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

It's tough to put ourselves in that environment, IMO. Germany was working on a nuke, Einstein thought so anyway and we now know he was right. Combined with their advanced (for the day) missile tech, if they'd got the bomb first, would have been a different ballgame. One wonders how many nukes they would have used on Allied cities.

The Japanese were pretty harsh in WW2. Not saying they deserved to be nuked but I can see how people at the time could have felt justified in that.

War is a harsh thing, nothing nice about it. My Dad was on the Westfront as an infantrist, during the final episode. Not to mention all the others.

Ofcourse, everybody felt justified to drop those bombs, or were made to feel that way. This is how wars are, without all the emotional manipulation. There are no wars with manipulation of the masses.

From a strategic point of view, it would have been stupid not to drop the bombs, once they had them.

It is the phrasing of the term, "it ended the war", to create the belief, it was a "good thing", rather than stating, 'chances are we may not have defeated the Japanese on their island with conventional means'.

Hypocritical and apologetic, to say the least. But than again, propagandist rethoric is part of the equation.

4x4_Welder · #40 01-07-2010, 09:18 PM

Dude, seriously, learn to use the multi-quote function.
The fact of the matter has already been stated, the Japanese would have given a huge fight that would have ended in many more deaths than the bombs caused. Now don't get me wrong, I am not specifically "pro-bomb", but I believe in using the right tool for the job. If they were willing to order their pilots to their deaths, and the pilots celebrated that opportunity to die for their country, how do you fight that? How do you stop someone who is trying to kill you yet also wants to die? Would you lay down and let them kill you?
The US military completely and utterly defeated the Japanese, but they would not surrender. They kept fighting, death was more honorable than loss. It was an unfortunate action, but again I will say that was the better option. Please note also that even in my original post, I never said it was a good option, just that it was less horrific.

aklim · #41 01-07-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Nothing but an empty phrase. Fact is, you can't articulate any difference.

Fact is, I can't articulate the difference to YOU if you cannot see the difference between someone shoved into a concentration camp and someone who isn't. I'd say the average japanese citizen is VERY different from someone in Treblinka. If you can't see that, either you are trying to yank my chain like you once admitted, in not so many words, or you honestly don't have the see the difference. Either case, I can't help you.

LaRondo · #42 01-07-2010, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4x4_Welder

Dude, seriously, learn to use the multi-quote function.
The fact of the matter has already been stated, the Japanese would have given a huge fight that would have ended in many more deaths than the bombs caused. Now don't get me wrong, I am not specifically "pro-bomb", but I believe in using the right tool for the job. If they were willing to order their pilots to their deaths, and the pilots celebrated that opportunity to die for their country, how do you fight that? How do you stop someone who is trying to kill you yet also wants to die? Would you lay down and let them kill you?
The US military completely and utterly defeated the Japanese, but they would not surrender. They kept fighting, death was more honorable than loss. It was an unfortunate action, but again I will say that was the better option. Please note also that even in my original post, I never said it was a good option,.

Same words, same justification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4x4_Welder

just that it was less horrific.

Where did you earn the degree to make such assessment?
Purely apologetic.

Billybob · #43 01-07-2010, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

It is the phrasing of the term, "it ended the war", to create the belief, it was a "good thing", rather than stating, 'chances are we may not have defeated the Japanese on their island with conventional means'
Hypocritical and apologetic, to say the least. But than again, propagandist rethoric is part of the equation.

“It is the phrasing of the term, "it ended the war", to create the belief, it was a "good thing", rather than stating, 'chances are we may not have defeated the Japanese on their island with conventional means'.”

On what basis do you put forth the proposition “rather than stating”:

"chances are we may not have defeated the Japanese on their island with conventional means."

All the evidence prior to using nuclear weapons was that; as had already been demonstrated by the complete destruction and defeat of the German national effort, the Japanese national effort would be completely destroyed and defeated on their island with conventional means also. One would think that someone with a personal history of national defeat at the hands of America would have a more measured and realistic view of the chances of a wartime ally facing the same!

“Hypocritical and apologetic, to say the least. But than again, propagandist rethoric is part of the equation”

Reviewing the posts of this thread it appears the “it ended the war” construct is a fabricated “phrasing of the term” of your own, you falsely attribute to some other! The fact that no one uttered either those words or statement makes it hard to understand your basis for concluding that something unspoken is hypocritical or apologetic much less propagandist rhetoric! Critical analysis is usually more valued if the subject of said critique exists somewhere other than in the mind of the critic!

Billybob · #44 01-07-2010, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LaRondo

Where did you earn the degree to make such assessment?
Purely apologetic.

American servicemen positioned to invade the Japanese home islands earned their degree's island hopping the way there, and most would concur that it was less horrific for them and hopefully more horrific for their adversaries! Where have you earned a degree to dispute that assessment?

LaRondo · #45 01-08-2010, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob

“It is the phrasing of the term, "it ended the war", to create the belief, it was a "good thing", rather than stating, 'chances are we may not have defeated the Japanese on their island with conventional means'.”

On what basis do you put forth the proposition “rather than stating”:

"chances are we may not have defeated the Japanese on their island with conventional means."

All the evidence prior to using nuclear weapons was that; as had already been demonstrated by the complete destruction and defeat of the German national effort, the Japanese national effort would be completely destroyed and defeated on their island with conventional means also. One would think that someone with a personal history of national defeat at the hands of America would have a more measured and realistic view of the chances of a wartime ally facing the same!

“Hypocritical and apologetic, to say the least. But than again, propagandist rethoric is part of the equation”

Reviewing the posts of this thread it appears the “it ended the war” construct is a fabricated “phrasing of the term” of your own, you falsely attribute to some other! The fact that no one uttered either those words or statement makes it hard to understand your basis for concluding that something unspoken is hypocritical or apologetic much less propagandist rhetoric! Critical analysis is usually more valued if the subject of said critique exists somewhere other than in the mind of the critic!

Noone may have uttered those phrasings, but all the justified statements lead back to the same official version of Western historical records of the A-Bomb dropings as "they ended WWII".
You may want to revisit the teachings of US History.