Feelings Toward Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[dogsbody70]

Originally Posted by termogard

America woke up, yes. An average Joe suddenly realized that american cities also can be attacked by enemy.
As for Bush Jr.... that is just not that simple, as 3M used to say.
GWB started a war under false pretexts and turned Iraq into bloody mess.

Imagine, that you are a SANE leader of some country with a decent military capabilities. Your intelligence informs you about a location of a terrorist's camp. You gives an order and your special forces make an operation with a surgeon's accuracy. Terrorists are wiped out without harm for civilians. No need to invade a whole country (except a case when you wish to seize and steal their oil, of course).
Many Brits did Not wish to go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, you said.
But Antony Bliar played a role of lap dog very well.

You are absolutely correct about BLAIR. He definitely was Bush's puppy dog. absolutely disgusting. many of us marched against invading IRAQ-- He totally ignored us.

So wanting to be bed fellow with BUSH. I do agree with the above also.

[fluffy0000]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

I've read various books on the issue.

I posted this link earlier in the thread if you want to read it. It sums it up pretty well

John Pilger: The lessons that should be learnt from Hiroshima | Comment is free | The Guardian

Unfortunately John Pilger article is based on a flawed conclussion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946' .

"Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

This startling conclusion was directly traceable to the truncated targeting work performed by a backstabbing bureacrat - Paul Nitze in early summer 1945'.
Unlike with the European work, where the USSBS staff conducted deep and searching interrogations, the abrupt end to the Pacific war caught the survey team with an open-ended theory and no data to prove it. Even so, Nitze and the report authors ended up putting the theory into the Pacific war summary.

Paul Nitze, who directed the USSBS, injected this passage at the last minute in response to a bureaucratic slight with the the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Again and again this same Nitze plan was also rejected by Nitze’s close friend James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy, and future Secretary of Defense. Nitze also used back channels in his failed attempt to promote his plan - He’d gone so far as to take the same plan to James F. Byrnes, who would become President Truman’s Secretary of State.

When Nitze pasted 'his theory' into the Pacific war report, it sparked a controversy that has lasted for generations. Thirty years later, Nitze sat for an important oral history in which he allowed, “It seems to me that Mr. Truman made the only possible decision.” By then, though, Nitze was too late. The Pacific war survey, with its hedging about atomic attacks, had already given critics the leverage they needed.

[Ryzorian]

There's a book out I find interesting. It also makes sense when you put the pieces together. The US didn't attack Iraq for oil, anymore than it's attacking Afganistan because of jihadi's. In fact we don't care if we eventually "loose" and are "driven out in humliation". We are only thier to destablize the whole region, thus preventing a united arabian nation. As long as muslims fight each other the US wins.

This book suggests that every action the US has taken in the last 100 years has be designed to ensure global dominance via the sea. It's why we bought Alaska and anexed Hawiai. The US has the most powerful navy in the world with the ability to project power anywhere they wish. No one can utilize the sealanes for trade if the US decides against it. The US uses diplomacy or military might to prevent any area becomeing strong enough to build a navy capable of challanging the US.

I'll have to post the name of the Book later cause I loaned it out to someone and can't recall it off hand. The author though, is what they call a "futurist". He thinks the American centruy hasn't even started yet.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

Unfortunately John Pilger article is based on a flawed conclussion of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946' .

"Even without the atomic bombing attacks," concluded the United States Strategic Bombing Survey of 1946, "air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion."

This startling conclusion was directly traceable to the truncated targeting work performed by a backstabbing bureacrat - Paul Nitze in early summer 1945'.
Unlike with the European work, where the USSBS staff conducted deep and searching interrogations, the abrupt end to the Pacific war caught the survey team with an open-ended theory and no data to prove it. Even so, Nitze and the report authors ended up putting the theory into the Pacific war summary.

Paul Nitze, who directed the USSBS, injected this passage at the last minute in response to a bureaucratic slight with the the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Again and again this same Nitze plan was also rejected by Nitze’s close friend James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy, and future Secretary of Defense. Nitze also used back channels in his failed attempt to promote his plan - He’d gone so far as to take the same plan to James F. Byrnes, who would become President Truman’s Secretary of State.

When Nitze pasted 'his theory' into the Pacific war report, it sparked a controversy that has lasted for generations. Thirty years later, Nitze sat for an important oral history in which he allowed, “It seems to me that Mr. Truman made the only possible decision.” By then, though, Nitze was too late. The Pacific war survey, with its hedging about atomic attacks, had already given critics the leverage they needed.

Well we'll never know as the US acted hastily. The fact is that as well this report, members of the US high command and many of the members of the manhattan project were against the bombing at that stage.

They knew what the effects would be and even went as far as to cover up the effects of the fallout.

[fluffy0000]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Well we'll never know as the US acted hastily. The fact is that as well this report, members of the US high command and many of the members of the manhattan project were against the bombing at that stage.

They knew what the effects would be and even went as far as to cover up the effects of the fallout.

The report sourced The UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY 1946' does not support your statement or the John Pilger article in the Guardian.
The USSBS of 1946' conclussion used by John Pilger in the Guardian article you sourced was a product of a disgruntled bureacrat Paul Nitze who pasted his 'theory' unchecked into the conclussion of the USSBS of 1946'.

The same Paul Nitze of the USSBS of 1946' in a l8tr oral history about the atomic bomb was quoted - “It seems to me that Mr. Truman made the only possible decision.”
This later admission not only undercuts his conclussion in the USSBS of 1946' it also undercuts John Pilgers article who used it's conclussion as a source in the Guardian.

[fluffy0000]

The US did not act hastily unless you believe the 'flawed' USSBS of 1946' with the pasted Paul Nitze conclussion which was a theory that went unchecked.

Lots of high ranking officials on both sides made mistakes and bad decisions. The Japanese also had officials that ignored reality.

In Aug 1945' For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history.

Japanese minister resigns for saying WW2 atomic bombs 'justified'Last updated at 14:20 03 July 2007



Read more: Japanese minister resigns for saying WW2 atomic bombs 'justified' | Mail Online

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by fluffy0000

The US did not act hastily unless you believe the 'flawed' USSBS of 1946' with the pasted Paul Nitze conclussion which was a theory that went unchecked.

Lots of high ranking officials on both sides made mistakes and bad decisions. The Japanese also had officials that ignored reality.

In Aug 1945' For the most part, Suzuki's military-dominated cabinet favored continuing the war. For the Japanese, surrender was unthinkable—Japan had never been invaded or lost a war in its history.

Japanese minister resigns for saying WW2 atomic bombs 'justified'Last updated at 14:20 03 July 2007



Read more: Japanese minister resigns for saying WW2 atomic bombs 'justified' | Mail Online

It could have been flawed. My point was that the bombs were dropped so there is no way to really know. Also.. peace was never pursued by the US.

That still leaves the fact that the US knew what the effects of the bomb would be. The manhattan project scientists who were against the usage of it and the fact that the US tried to cover up the effects of the fallout.

So I believe Pilger is still correct in his claim that it was a crime against humanity.

Also.. I don't know what that link is supposed to prove.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Ronin4hire

Also.. peace was never pursued by the US.

That still leaves the fact that the US knew what the effects of the bomb would be.

I don't think either of these statements are fully provable, much less true.

Was Japan pursuing peace in 1945?

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by MMM

I don't think either of these statements are fully provable, much less true.

Was Japan pursuing peace in 1945?

The latter is definitely true.

The former.. well inot provable perhaps. Japan definitely reached out though.

[fluffy0000]

The USSBS of 1946' was flawed not could have been flawed?

What part of Paul Nitzes 'pasted' theory into the conclussion of the USSBS of 1946' is'nt flawed, dude?

Paul Nitze was the head of the USSBS of 1946' he failed along with the rest of the authors of the survey to investigate or check his 'pasted' conclussion.

..., only three scholars who questioned the accuracy of Nitze’s conclusion, Robert J.C. Butow, William L. O’Neill, and Barton Bernstein, but none had access to or digested the voluminous USSBS files now open in the National Archives.

Gian Gentile, working under Bernstein at Stanford, did a thorough and critical study of the survey, and in his How Effective is Strategic Bombing? published by NYU Press in 2000, Gentile demolishes the Nitze contention. His bottom line: the Pacific Survey reports “If read as a collective whole . . . implicitly suggest that the atomic bomb was the sufficient cause that transformed the realization of defeat into surrender, thus contradicting the early surrender counterfactual.” To Gentile’s disgust, the wholly false claim became gospel truth.

Preeminent Japanese scholar of Japan’s decision to surrender, Sadao Asada. When he finally mastered the flood of documents released toward the end of the twentieth century, he published his conclusions in the Pacific Historical Review, November 1998: “The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan’s Decision to Surrender – A Reconsideration.”

Asada shoots down definitively two of the anti-Truman lobby’s favorite claims: that Soviet entry, not the bomb, triggered the surrender, and that the surrender would have come as early as June if the United States had guaranteed the continuation of the emperor. The Soviet invasion, says Asada, “gave them an indirect shock, whereas the use of the atomic bomb on their homeland gave them the direct threat of the atomic extinction of the Japanese people.” As for guaranteeing the emperor, Asada notes that this was not the sole sticking point, that the Japanese military demanded also no occupation, no war crimes trials, and no forcible disarmament. Asada is clear that only after the Nagasaki bomb, proving that the atom was not a one-shot weapon, did the emperor prevail over Minister of War Anami and secure agreement to surrender. Asada’s stature in the scholarly world is sufficient to bury these two erroneous claims