Military Buffs I need your help.

[primitive]

A Histoy lesson. Well worth 5 minutes

As always when reading history; "facts" are "events of high probability" and "conclusions" are "interpretations".

These are my interpretations of the events. Feel free to interpret differntly:

* The bombs did nothing to help the ending of the war
* The first bomb was dropped for testing, to justify the budget for the Manhattan project and to intimidate the Soviets.
* The second bomb was just plain murder. If it had been dropped on the original target, it may have been justifiable as testing of a new type of target.

But as Rex already pointed out. If the (first) bomb hadn't been dropped, its very doubtfull we would have made it through Korea and the cold war without the bomb beeing dropped somewhere else.

[AssHat]

I find it shocking to see how many people believe with perfect hindsight that the U.S. was wrong to deploy atomic weapons against the empire of Japan.

The decision was made in the context of a brutal war of aggression waged by samurai warriors equipped with western arms. They neither gave nor expected quarter during their decade long murder spree throughout the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The military junta went against Yamamoto's advice not to provoke the U.S. and they reaped the whirlwind.

Attack the U.S. directly in a war that threatens U.S. survival and you will end up like the Confederate States of America, Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan....smokin' friggin' ruins. The righteous might of free men bestirred is a power to behold.

That said, there is no more magnanimous victor than the United States and any country rehabilitated by U.S. force of arms is sure to benefit in the long run.

[rextorres]

I don't know if the US was wrong or not in dropping the bomb (frankly the fire bombings sound more horrific based on accounts I've read) - but a lot of people - even a couple on this forum have implied that the bombs were dropped for some altruistic reasons.

In reality the US was fire bombing civilians already and dropped the bomb on a civilian target, probably dropped the bomb out of revenge (as your posting and some others on the board highlights), for strategic leverage after the war, and based on what some Japanese documents suggest could have gotten a surrender without the need to drop the bombs.

Some people feel uncomfortable with this "revisionist" history because it doesn't show the US in the best light and in today's Jingoistic climate if your not 100% pro US your unpatriotic . . . I guess if it lets them sleep better at night good for them.

[ December 13, 2003, 20:22: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[President_Elect_Shang]

First off as to the bombings, I feel that there had to be an alternate way to overcome the Japanese and bring peace, for peat’s-sake it’s an island, blockade it. Not the best idea but you get the point right? As to the comments about revisionist history, I have seen a plethora of alternate ideas and explanations. Many of which appeared well thought out and valid, to me at least.

The big point I see in this thread is that hindsight is not truly 20/20. By this I mean to say that today we can only speculate as to the emotions that played a part in the making of the [two] decisions to drop. It would be nice to have an accurate record since, as we all know this is sometimes the biggest factor in any decision. Cool heads don’t always prevail. To this I can at least concur whole-heartedly.

The other item I would like to touch on is that here in America the Revolutionary War is discussed in some High School classrooms in more depth than WW2 is. Why is that? Are the leaders of this nations school system (yes it is my nation also) afraid to admit that we committed what can be easily argued as one of the most horrid acts of humanity. It is done and in the past. I think it should be taught in every school around the world in the hopes that facing similar circumstances those teens, now turned adults will not make the same mistake. Isn’t that why we teach our children, so that they will be better than us?

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hat, your saying that the US has the right to act as brutal or more brutal than there opponents and that afterword they'll be better off having been defeated by the US. there might be a few things wrong with this viewpoint.

[AssHat]

My main point is that the decision was made with the proper historical context: Japanese war of aggression against the west, no surrender, no mercy. We responded in kind assuming they would not surrender to McArthur without having devastation wrought upon them. That is what happened.

As for the revenge factor, I just wanted to make it clear the Japanese got what they deserved.

The U.S. was NOT as brutal as the Japanese or the Germans (Nanking, Bataan, Malmedy, Auschwitz and lots more). The rebuilt Japanese and German societies are more wealthy and free than the majority of countries today, and they are two of our staunch allies. So what was wrong with that viewpoint?

[ December 13, 2003, 23:02: Message edited by: AssHat ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

indeed? including two-month old children?