"It was beautiful."

Sounds almost as nasty as Nanking.


Oh that's right, these guys were the bad guys . . . so this is a case of getting what you get for doing what you did.

Anyone interested in this needs to read the first part of Strategy in the Missile Age (full PDF available at link), which contains a very in-depth analysis of strategic bombing in World War 2.  Apparently the Japs were already negotiating with the Soviets when we dropped the first Bomb, which the American leadership may or may not have known.  The second Bomb, of course, was purely for Stalin's benefit.

MSG Tripps wrote:

In my opinion, bombs good.  Invasion = Too many dead Bros.

A demonstration off the coast would of done the trick without massive civilian casualties.  But that's okay, they weren't white.

Dmtdust wrote:

MSG Tripps wrote:

In my opinion, bombs good.  Invasion = Too many dead Bros.

A demonstration off the coast would of done the trick without massive civilian casualties.  But that's okay, they weren't white.

According to what I was taught in history class, the higher-ups in the military considered that, but eventually nixed the idea because no one could guarantee that the Bomb would work at all.  Imagine the embarrassment of setting up a demonstration of a dud bomb.  Even an effective demonstration might have been dismissed by Japan as some kind of hoax.  And remember, at the time they only had two bombs.

George Orr wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

MSG Tripps wrote:

In my opinion, bombs good.  Invasion = Too many dead Bros.

A demonstration off the coast would of done the trick without massive civilian casualties.  But that's okay, they weren't white.

According to what I was taught in history class, the higher-ups in the military considered that, but eventually nixed the idea because no one could guarantee that the Bomb would work at all.  Imagine the embarrassment of setting up a demonstration of a dud bomb.  Even an effective demonstration might have been dismissed by Japan as some kind of hoax.  And remember, at the time they only had two bombs.

That makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Hey sometimes the crap shoot works for you.  If the invasion had occurred Japan might not be "rebuilt" still.

George Orr wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

MSG Tripps wrote:

In my opinion, bombs good.  Invasion = Too many dead Bros.

A demonstration off the coast would of done the trick without massive civilian casualties.  But that's okay, they weren't white.

According to what I was taught in history class, the higher-ups in the military considered that, but eventually nixed the idea because no one could guarantee that the Bomb would work at all.  Imagine the embarrassment of setting up a demonstration of a dud bomb.  Even an effective demonstration might have been dismissed by Japan as some kind of hoax.  And remember, at the time they only had two bombs.

Remember, at the time we didn't really know what we had on our hands. I think the vast majority of people involved with the decision thought of the atomic bomb as just a really big conventional bomb--remember those tests in the desert where we had our own troops in trenches just to see what would happen to them? We're looking at this decision after 60 years of popular culture about nuclear winter, mutated animals, horrific post-apocalyptic dystopias, etc.

My dad grew up near Oak Ridge. They sold irradiated dimes in lucite to kids at the gift shop, for Christ's sake.

choad wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

MSG Tripps wrote:

In my opinion, bombs good.  Invasion = Too many dead Bros.

A demonstration off the coast would of done the trick without massive civilian casualties.  But that's okay, they weren't white.

The political leaders here who pulled that trigger knew the consequences of their actions and knew their stated rationale was patent bullcrap. Dwight Eisenhower never forgave them for it.

Wish I believed there was a hell they could burn in. You should frame this next bit somewhere, Dusty...

Pray tell Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback, what should we have done?  Sent a nice card and some chocolates to the military junta running Japan and asked them to surrender nicely?   Maybe we could have replayed the invasion of Okinawa on a much larger scale?  Maybe we could have just walked away, whistling non-chalantly and pretended none of it ever happened.

Or maybe you forget that Japan is and was a culture so unlike ours that most of us can't comprehend even the amount of difference.  A culture of Nihonjiin and Gaijiin and no others.  A culture of honor suicide and granite social tiers; institutional racism and xenophobia.  A culture that to this very day still claims to be the last pure race on earth.

Fuck 'em, they knew it was coming both times and refused to evacuate the cities.

War is ugly, brutal and nasty, which is why as Americans we don't like to start it ourselves.  We've only done that twice, the first time the Brits and Canucks kicked our asses and burnt our capital.   The second time we're still living but it's turning out just about as bad.

choad wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Pray tell Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback, what should we have done?

We should never have cooked up that war in first place.

I agree, paying the Japanese to invade and conquer China was really short-sighted on our part.

Em dear, keep on believing the pap the forced into your ears that we take as history.  Really.  Pay no attention to anything that might deviate from the programming.

I hate to at least partially agree with Aunt Em, but I do.
After Kublai's fleet blew away in the wind (twice - 1274/1281 - thus the origin of the word kami-kazi—god-wind), the Nipponese considered themselves the invincible king-turds of the world (much like the English, and then the Americans after them). What the japs did in Nanking (six weeks/300,000 deaths = 50,000 cold-blooded murders a week) was decidedly over-the-top. (There are still Chinese groups dedicated to monitoring Jap millitarism, much the way Jews keep a jaundiced eye focused on Germany.) Japanese arrogance and fascism was worse than Austria's, and their willingness to spill inferior blood was untempered by conscience or remorse. Not to use atomics would have been a silly thing. Ordinance is only ordinance, but wasting personnel (the hallmark of generals such as Patton and Montgomery) is stupid, morally and politically. Hindsight is pointless in war, and the people I consider responsible for Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the Japanese themselves, the leaders who instilled the patterns of arrogance and militarism, and the civilians who swallowed their bullshit without question. And let me add this - by the same essential logic, I applaud the destruction of the twin towers. Sometimes the attitudes and actions of a nation engender justified acts of callous murder and destruction.

choad wrote:

a hell they could burn in

Shit fire choad, I will see you there.

Emmeran wrote:

Pray tell Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback, what should we have done?  Sent a nice card and some chocolates to the military junta running Japan and asked them to surrender nicely?   Maybe we could have replayed the invasion of Okinawa on a much larger scale?  Maybe we could have just walked away, whistling non-chalantly and pretended none of it ever happened.

Actually that did kind of happen. They said to us, "um, how can I, ya know, um, get off this?" to the Russians (this would have been immediately after Leyte Gulf, before Okinawa.) The Russians told the Japanese, "those crazy American dudes, they're all 'Unconditional Surrender, Motherfucker!' and tovarich, they means it." And the Japanese said to them, "We're all cool with your 'Unconditional Surrender' thing, but, ya know, the Emperor dude's a cool dude and I just can't make him move out, it's antibrovian behavior." And the Russians said to us, "They Have Conditions!" So we bombed them, the fire bombings worse by every measure, moral to damage done, than the nukes. And the Japanese said, "Yo, Rus, Bromine?" and the Russians said, "Manchus before bros, biatch!" And the Japanese said, "OK, GIVES!, but" and we said, "Sure I understand a brolationship, for the emperor dude, mi occupado casa, is su casa." And the war ended 1 year and over 1 million bodies too late.

My point? I have none. It happened, get over it. If it didn't happen then it likely would have happened with 3 years in a corridor from Fulda to St.Pete's. "How many polacks does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "none, they glow in the dark."

We do not live in the moral universe of 1945 and any attempt we make to draw a moral conclusion says more about us than it does about them. I think it was fortunate. As a people, we had to see the Monster before we could understand the consequences.

orangeplus wrote:

We do not live in the moral universe of 1945 and any attempt we make to draw a moral conclusion says more about us than it does about them.

Yeah, we're so much more evolved.

I've often thought that we may have been lucky that nuclear weapons were used as early as they were, and everybody got to see what they do.

Imagine if the first bomb had been detonated in 1950 instead of 1945.  Berlin, maybe?  Or if the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1960 (61?) had played out with none of the parties really knowing what nukes would actually do.

tojo2000 wrote:

I have to say, when I went to the Hiroshima Peace Park and saw the displays, I was overwhelmed by the way it was displayed.  There was no mention of Americans killing people, instead statements like "when the world's first atomic bomb was dropped" were littered throughout.  Rather than take any position on the war itself, the location of the bombing serves as a reminder of the hell that we now know can be wreaked by nuclear weapons, and as a warning against using them in the future.  There is plenty of blame that can  be assigned, but really it was a horror unprecedented, and the most important thing is that it never happens again.

It truly is something everyone should see and visit, I recommend visiting alone, early in the morning.  The museum got to be a bit much at the end, they over-played the "pity the poor children" card to the point that towards the end of the walk through you were becoming imune to that particular bit of tragedy.

The notes are amazing though.

So, Toj, were you the gal on the left with nice hoots and kinda fat upper arms, or the fella standing next to her?

Taint wrote:

I have a friend who survived Hiroshima. As a teenager, his parents had sent him from California to Japan to visit family - the timing couldn't have been worse. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and there was no way for him to return the States. The Japanese government didn't trust him because, even though he was ethnically Japanese, he was still an American. He was imprisoned and forced to work in a Japanese munitions plant near the city where he lived throughout the war. When the bomb was finally dropped, he survived and was able to return home to California. He still has health problems from the bombing more than 60 years later.

I have a friend who survived Auschwitz with two badly broken arms, by hiding in the officer's toilet and laving their testicles while they shat, then consuming their feces for undigested protein. When the war was over he went back to the States and found a job as a journalist, doing essentially the same thing.

Dmtdust wrote:

Well, that is the last time I click on a topic when I see you post.

Yeah, right.

MSG Tripps wrote:

Fuck everyone of you.

An ambitious project. Start with pENIx.

MSG Tripps wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

pENIx.

Would that be the target [of] opportunity?

Yes - GGHG. Muckle on.

MSG Tripps wrote:

WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Yes - GGHG. Muckle on.

That ain't even obscure, it's just bullshit.

Like most Americans, you think your experience defines reality.
GGHG you can figure out yourself. It applies, and no, it's not bullshit.
As for t'other:

Wiktionary wrote:

Verb

Infinitive
to muckle
       
Third person singular
muckles
       
Simple past
muckled
       
Past participle
muckled
       
Present participle
muckling

to muckle (third-person singular simple present muckles, present participle muckling, simple past and past participle muckled)

   1. (US, dialectal) To latch onto something with the mouth.
          * 1954, Elizabeth Ogilvie, The Dawning of the Day[2], page 199, 
        And how'd she get such a holt on you, Terence Campion, let alone the way she's muckled onto those Bennetts?

          * 2002, William G. Wilkoff, The Maternity Leave Breastfeeding Plan[3], ISBN 0743213459, page 87, 
                Another technique for the baby who is having trouble muckling on involves a breast or nipple shield.

          * 2004, William J. Vande Kopple, The Catch: Families, Fishing, and Faith[4], ISBN 0802826776, page 18, 
                When an exhausted sucker is hauled to the top of The Wall, usually its muckling circle of a mouth goes into a frenzied sucking spasm.

Muckler. Je muckle. Tu muckles. Il muckle. Nous mucklons. Vous mucklez. Ils mucklent.

Sidebanner?

PS: Wilburrr, upstick assward.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

Last edited by sigmoid freud (2008-10-20 21:26:10)