As hinted at by Ambassador Kennedy and SoS Kerry's recent visits to Hiroshima, Obama's team has announced he will make the first formal state visit to the site on 5/27 after attending the G7 summit in Ise. This is lighting up the Japanese media, as expectations are running high for a start to meaningful dialogue on accelerated nuclear disarmament.

The White House has emphasized this visit is not about apologies or WWII, but reflections on the horrors of WMD and a possible future without them.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36258866

Needless to say, while this is indeed a historic moment, the cynics among us don't expect much to actually come from efforts to rid the world of WMD.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter): Needless to say, while this is indeed a historic moment, the cynics among us don't expect much to actually come from efforts to rid the world of WMD.

Good. The world will always be better off where the West has nuclear weapons and the rest of the world doesn't.

Figures... I guess there was one final stop left in the worldwide apology tour before he retires.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter): Needless to say, while this is indeed a historic moment, the cynics among us don't expect much to actually come from efforts to rid the world of WMD.

It's not a historic moment, it's an embarrassment.

If he wasn't going to apologize then no press weenies would feel the need to emphasize that this isn't an apology. It's just like how people will say "I'm not going to make excuses" and then rattle off a bunch of excuses.

Beyond that, ridding the world of WMDs would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do and even advocating such a thing or pointing to it as a desired state of affairs points to a striking naivete and disconnect from reality.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): Beyond that, ridding the world of WMDs would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do and even advocating such a thing or pointing to it as a desired state of affairs points to a striking naivete and disconnect from reality.

Not to mention how to actually get to that end state without fearing someone would stash their nukes somewhere to ensure they are the only ones left with them...

Other than vaccines and penicillin, and setting aside basic sanitation which has a much more diffuse ownership for the invention, few human creations have saved more lives than nuclear weapons.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter): The White House has emphasized this visit is not about apologies or WWII,

I call bull, he isn't exactly known for standing up for the US. He just goes overseas and grovels, that is why the rest of the world like him.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 2): Figures... I guess there was one final stop left in the worldwide apology tour before he retires.

Unfortunately there is still time for him to continue to weaken the United States.

With the election coming in November, does anyone think Obama would hand the Hawks of the Right a slam dunk issue by apologizing for defeating Japan in WW2 at the cost that was paid in blood and treasure? As for weakening the US, I call Bullshit.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): Beyond that, ridding the world of WMDs would be an exceptionally stupid thing to do and even advocating such a thing or pointing to it as a desired state of affairs points to a striking naivete and disconnect from reality.

There will always be a dichotomy of geopolitical reality and where humanity would like to be. It's fair to say it takes logical fortitude to plainly state the limitations of both.

Also an anti-nuclear message is timely given the DPRK's ridiculous cries for attention. After all:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 6): does anyone think Obama would hand the Hawks of the Right a slam dunk issue by apologizing for defeating Japan in WW

Of course he'll do no such thing. Some of the people above just live for emotional gobbledygook.

[Edited 2016-05-10 19:56:46]

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 6): As for weakening the US, I call Bullshit.

I'll give him credit for sailing past China's new fake island. I just hope the commitment goes deeper than freedom of navigation exercises (not that those are unimportant).

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7): Also an anti-nuclear message is timely given the DPRK's ridiculous cries for attention.

Not really. Anti-nuclear is the opposite of the message that needs to be sent. The message should be one of peace through superior firepower and unwavering deterrence. The President needs to stand up in Hiroshima and say that Hiroshima is a great example of what happens if you fuck with America and a great example of what happens if you cooperate with America.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8): The President needs to stand up in Hiroshima and say that Hiroshima is a great example of what happens if you fuck with America and a great example of what happens if you cooperate with America.

I'd be laughing for days if those were the words he actually used, but it would be 100% correct.

I'm really just more concerned with Foxtards who are railing against 'Japs' in response to this - if they actually visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki, they'd see what moving on from the past looks like.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8): The President needs to stand up in Hiroshima and say that Hiroshima is a great example of what happens if you fuck with America and a great example of what happens if you cooperate with America.

That will never happen. He's going to say something like "the bombing of Hiroshima is a dark chapter in US history", or something like that. It will be an apology without actually being an apology, if you get my drift.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9): I'm really just more concerned with Foxtards who are railing against 'Japs' in response to this - if they actually visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki, they'd see what moving on from the past looks like.

First of all, can you point to a single presenter on Fox who used the term "Japs"? Secondly, the Japanese have "moved on from the past" way too easily. Unlike Germany, they have never owned up to the atrocities they committed in the 30's and 40's, and way too many Japanese think of themselves as victims in WWII.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): First of all, can you point to a single presenter on Fox who used the term "Japs"?

No, talking about the hundreds of comments using the term that Foxtards showed up with on the Fox FB feed story about it.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): Secondly, the Japanese have "moved on from the past" way too easily. Unlike Germany, they have never owned up to the atrocities they committed in the 30's and 40's, and way too many Japanese think of themselves as victims in WWII.

Let's be accurate here. The Japanese government certainly moved on way too easily, but that's because the US helped install the LDP in the late 1950s and they've never looked back, with a strong nationalist element at the fringe of the party just for added fun.

Japanese citizens of the contemporary age may not be able to view themselves as victims, but those who lived through the war and the years when all powers of government were usurped by a militarist dictatorship can. Unlike Nazi Germany where the citizens voted repeatedly for an increasingly fascist state, Japanese fascism grew from within the upper and military castes of society into a full-blown expression of all institutions. Even from the mid-1920s the secret police ensured there was no active opposition in either general society or the mainstream press. Did the citizens of the time deserve the horrors their government eventually brought to them? Only the callous would say they did.

My girlfriend's 95 year-old grandmother, who fled Osaka for the countryside in 1942, never talks about the war voluntarily and the one time it came up, had only this to say: 'the imperials raped us with their warmaking. I still don't want to see their faces'

[Edited 2016-05-10 23:49:59]

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8): Not really. Anti-nuclear is the opposite of the message that needs to be sent. The message should be one of peace through superior firepower and unwavering deterrence. The President needs to stand up in Hiroshima and say that Hiroshima is a great example of what happens if you fuck with America and a great example of what happens if you cooperate with America.

What would that accomplish ? The US is in that position without saying it. Saying it just causes trouble, and you have countries that feel insulted, cancel Boeing orders, start a competing industry instead, etc.

The world is a different place these days. The events of Hiroshima happened over 70 years ago. I don't see anything wrong with a sitting US President visiting a tragic site like that. I myself agree that the atomic bomb was necessary at the time or at least I offer zero negativity towards the act at that time nor harbor any need for someone to apologize, but this thread is not debating that.

I seriously doubt he is going on any apology tour. I don't think he would do that to the memory of World War II, the millions of American lives lost, those who are serving in war right now and also to that of his Grandfather who served as well during World War II. There is nothing wrong with him looking to the future and wishing for some sort of peace, and honestly, do you even see anything wrong in giving respects to the thousands that died there. It's just a human thing to do.

Should Kennedy have skipped Berlin less than 20 years after it was obliterated? I mean, FxxK, that city was tore up!

That being said, huge Obama supporter here but he better not make any apologies!!! No US President after Truman should have anything to say on the matter. No one should apologize for policy decisions 70 years ago, But Obama has a right to go to pay his respects. Cannot understand why some see anything wrong in that.

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 13): But Obama has a right to go to pay his respects. Cannot understand why some see anything wrong in that.

Because it's Obama - some people will criticize anything he does out of reflex. If he came out in favor of breathing, some people suffocate just to show their opposition.

Quoting Moose135 (Reply 14): Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 13): But Obama has a right to go to pay his respects. Cannot understand why some see anything wrong in that. Because it's Obama - some people will criticize anything he does out of reflex. If he came out in favor of breathing, some people suffocate just to show their opposition.

Anything to distract themselves from the Hiroshima that is the GOP right now

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 13): No one should apologize for policy decisions 70 years ago

No apology but a reflection always helps.

Nuking two cities and fire-bombing Tokyo or the many cities in Germany shall, of course, be seen in the historical context and the Military necessities of WW2 and the ruthless behaviour of Germany and Japan, but that the deliberate bombing of civilian Targets must be inapprorpriate for all future combats should also be acknowledged by the winning countries of WW2, IMHO.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 16): Targets must be inapprorpriate for all future combats should also be acknowledged by the winning countries of WW2, IMHO.

Not just the winning countries. The losing countries did plenty of it too.

Obama will not apologize for dropping those bombs, but the visit will serve as a poignant reminder of why Nuclear arsenals can never be used again. The damage at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is nothing (~5%) compared to what modern Hydrogen Bombs can do. It also highlights how far the world has come from the days of all out war, and serves as a reminder of why we can't have wars like that again.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17): The losing countries did plenty of it too.

I know but especially in Germany it is common sense today that the bombings of Coventry and Guernica were war crimes. At the same time Arthur Harris was getting raised a Memorial in the late 1990s in London.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17): of why we can't have wars like that again

I would word it "must not have wars like that again". Unfortunately, we do not know whether it really stays this way. Lets face it, the world is still a place with lots of conflicts which could turn to a Major confrontation (Korea peninsula, Vietnam, Russian Aggression, a potential Donald Trump as POTUS).

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 2): worldwide apology tour

The lie that refuses to die.

You wanna know what that's called? A zombie lie.

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17): It also highlights how far the world has come from the days of all out war, and serves as a reminder of why we can't have wars like that again.

Well, if you really want to be cynical:

1) WWII was fought in the day when a bomb's accuracy was measured in miles. Carpet bombing of an entire area (like a city) was the only way to reliably hit a strategically important target, like tank factory. Since then our targeting systems are much improved, making such mass destruction unnecessary in warfare.

2) Right about the same time as WWII, modern medicine made huge leaps forward with antibiotics, etc.

3) Global communications and transportation systems have served to combat famines and disease outbreaks.

As a result of all three of these, the old school rule that war, famine and disease hold the world's population in check has been negated, at least for the past 70 years. Result, population explosion. World population was 2.3 billion in 1940, 7.3 billion today, and growing fast. At some point, something MUST happen to bring the population growth under control, whether it is some new disease, a nuclear war, or mass famine. It will happen.

The idea that we can continue as we are today is unrealistic, with populations breeding like crazy. Something ugly will happen.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20): At some point, something MUST happen to bring the population growth under control, whether it is some new disease, a nuclear war, or mass famine. It will happen.

And that control mechanism is private property. People like nice stuff and are willing to have fewer children to support a higher material standard of living. You see it all over the world. The combination of advanced development, higher labor skill and productivity, and lower infant mortality leads to smaller family sizes. In some places, family size is actually becoming too small.

There is no looming Malthusian crisis or the need for some natural/man-made disaster to cull the population.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20): The idea that we can continue as we are today is unrealistic, with populations breeding like crazy. Something ugly will happen.

Which people have been saying since the 1970s. Now we have twice as many human beings around and the net human condition is significantly better.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 12): What would that accomplish ? The US is in that position without saying it. Saying it just causes trouble, and you have countries that feel insulted, cancel Boeing orders, start a competing industry instead, etc.

It would be a welcome reminder to the peaceniks that our Western liberal societies are the morally superior way, that we have enemies who wish us harm, and that our way is worth defending at all cost.

As to feeling insulted, insert Lucile Bluth gif here.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20): At some point, something MUST happen to bring the population growth under control, whether it is some new disease, a nuclear war, or mass famine. It will happen.

Economics has done a splendid job of slowing growth in 1st world countries. But yes growth must slow down in third world and other countries.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 20): The idea that we can continue as we are today is unrealistic, with populations breeding like crazy. Something ugly will happen.

Yep, Famine,disesase and war.

Quoting L-188 (Reply 5): He just goes overseas and grovels, that is why the rest of the world like him.

What is that? It sounds like Fox Talking Point #17 for its brainless viewing masses. Obama just goes overseas and grovels..where and when did that happen, was it Cuba where he scolded and taunted their President on live TV with Raul Castro subject to journalist Q&A in front of his people for the first time since 1954?

Just the opposite, that's called visionary leadership focused on fomenting change by taking the high road, by letting time, values and communication do the nuking for us. But to your mind I can understand how different the intelligent approach must be to the last example of Conservative GOP foreign policy. Let's say it together..$2T, 5000 dead American kids, 100,000 maimed and scarred for life, zero accountability...because of a Fedex tube Cheney promised Bushie was an ICBM launcher. Christ, was an effed tragedy that turned out to be.

Obama's going to Hiroshima and he's not apologizing to anyone and he's not being asked to. He's showing some respect to 100,000 civilians incinerated in a microsecond in a nation that is now, and has been for many years, one of our closest friends and most critical allies.

I hope you can appreciate just how painfully imbecilic your statement is.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8): The message should be one of peace through superior firepower and unwavering deterrence.

Because Bush did so well with that in Iraq....

And then there's this...

In Japan and America, more and more people think Hiroshima bombing was wrong.

My generation is a disappointment in so many ways...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 3): It's not a historic moment, it's an embarrassment. If he wasn't going to apologize then no press weenies would feel the need to emphasize that this isn't an apology. It's just like how people will say "I'm not going to make excuses" and then rattle off a bunch of excuses.

Yes, yes, we know. The man could drink some tea and you'd accuse him of being a British sympathizer and an embarrassment.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 10): He's going to say something like "the bombing of Hiroshima is a dark chapter in US history", or something like that. It will be an apology without actually being an apology, if you get my drift.

If it was clearly going to not be an apology then nobody would need to clarify that it's not an apology.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 12): What would that accomplish ?

Reassure key allies and send a message to potential and actual adversaries. Funny you'd mention Boeing since an order from Iran would be a prime example of what happens when you cooperate.

Quoting Aeri28 (Reply 13): Should Kennedy have skipped Berlin less than 20 years after it was obliterated?

There were a lot of other reasons to go to Berlin at that time. What other significance does Hiroshima have? If Obama wanted to do something similar he'd go to the Senkaku Islands.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 25): My generation is a disappointment in so many ways...

I can no longer defend millennials either.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 26): Yes, yes, we know. The man could drink some tea and you'd accuse him of being a British sympathizer and an embarrassment.

You should go read reply 8 then before you spout off like a moron.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27): If it was clearly going to not be an apology then nobody would need to clarify that it's not an apology.

That clarification is not only for domestic consumption though. Right-wing nationalists within Japan have long been feared to spin ANY state visit by a sitting President as apology because it serves their narrative.

Actually given the levels of dissatisfaction with PM Abe and his attempts to reinterpret the Article 9 peace clause regardless of public opposition, it's probably the worst timing for this Obama could have picked since 2008.

For the uninitiated, there are numerous right-wing groups that parade through major cities on weekends all the time with megaphones proclaiming nonsense like 'Tojo was a national hero', and 'liberal education preaches Western-influenced self-hate'.



[Edited 2016-05-11 19:25:33]

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 25): My generation is a disappointment in so many ways...

My generation really is a disappointment. Being seen as entitled. Demanding political correctness. Always seeking the easy way through life.

This is not one disappointment. It's actually quite heartening to see a shift. It means our generation recognizes the destructive nature of atomic weapons and would be hesitant to use them unless there's no other choice.

We're often told how the atomic weapons saved lives because it meant invading Japan could be taken off the table. Less soldiers lost, less resources spent. Yes, for those 2 days that the US attacked Japan with atomic weapons, civilians died in place of soldiers. However, to be proud of the effort means you somehow think Japanese civilians are less worthy of life...these were ordinary civilians, going on about their daily lives. Yes, we may have saved thousands of American lives...at the cost of up to a quarter million civilians.

So, call me a disappointment but I'm glad this shift is happening. There's no need to apologize. What's done is done. Let's just make sure this doesn't have to happen again.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter): the cynics among us don't expect much to actually come from efforts to rid the world of WMD

Most progress in humanity starts as an unpopular idea.
Leadership is getting out in front of public opinion and setting the agenda for discussion.
....there are those that always fear progress or a new way, you can see them on this thread.

Moral leadership is important and the US is morally superior when it uses weapons defensively, reluctantly....Obama wins friends with this while enemies still take note of who has the biggest guns.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 4): few human creations have saved more lives than nuclear weapons.

Probably.

....but it's far more effective to lull felonious threats like China and Russia with happy talk than it is to empower their dictatorships with constant Macho chest pounding.

The US as a loud obnoxious Cheney-style threat strengthens it's enemies. Speak softly in soothing tones, but carry a big stick.

Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 18): Germany it is common sense today that the bombings of Coventry and Guernica were war crimes

Only because Germany embarrassingly lost the war and has somewhat absdurdly compensated by adopting a national mindset of peace at any price.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27): Reassure key allies

Tanks and planes in Norway and Estonia at Obama's order reassure allies.

Talking up peace and talking down the moral ghetto of nuclear weapons ALSO reassures key allies, while likewise deflating anti-Americanism among both friends and enemies.





Pu.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27): What other significance does Hiroshima have?

Wasn't there different commanders and different fighters in Japan vs. Germany? Normandy was hell. Many soldiers were wounded and killed. The fire bombings across Germany, what significance did they have? Civilians died there, too.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a generation ago. Leaders in the United States were working with different intel and different intel gathering than what we have today. Because the war in Europe was wrapped up, yes, we could have sent all our troops and fire power to Japan. And killed thousands more US soldiers in a ground invasion.

With Nagasaki and Hiroshima being factory cities and civilians being used as slave labor and being fed propaganda, perhaps the American leadership felt that was their best choice at the time. Perhaps current leaders look back and see what the mistakes were and that we are making strides to not let them happen again.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 8): The President needs to stand up in Hiroshima and say that Hiroshima is a great example of what happens if you fuck with America and a great example of what happens if you cooperate with America.

And you'd be screaming in rage if China or Russia did that to anyone else. Hypocrite

Quoting casinterest (Reply 17): Not just the winning countries. The losing countries did plenty of it too.

Yes, though that flys in the face of the fact the Allied bombing was more destructive, by far.

The first of the firebombing raids on Japan, on Tokyo, in March 1945 holds the "record" for the most destructive attack on a city. 16 square miles razed and 120.000 killed. Just in one attack.

At the end of the day, nuclear bombs didn't impress the japanese in the context of the firebombing going on since March.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 28): Actually given the levels of dissatisfaction with PM Abe and his attempts to reinterpret the Article 9 peace clause regardless of public opposition, it's probably the worst timing for this Obama could have picked since 2008.

Good for Abe then. Japan has the economic and technical capacity to take on more of their own defense and should be encouraged to do so.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 29): Yes, for those 2 days that the US attacked Japan with atomic weapons, civilians died in place of soldiers.

Their civilians in the place of our soldiers. That's what winning looks like. Remember how bad it was for the losers and use it as motivation to work your ass off to make sure you're never faced with that prospect.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 29): However, to be proud of the effort means you somehow think Japanese civilians are less worthy of life...these were ordinary civilians, going on about their daily lives.

You, me and all Americans damn well should be proud of it. The Manhattan Project is neck and neck with the moon landing for the greatest thing America has ever accomplished. (Maybe second if you count the idea of America itself)

Quoting Pu (Reply 30): Most progress in humanity starts as an unpopular idea.

It's fine to lay out you idealistic vision, but it should be an actual improvement from the present state and not a disaster scenario like a world without WMDs. That is the opposite of progress.

Quoting Pu (Reply 30): Only because Germany embarrassingly lost the war and has somewhat absdurdly compensated by adopting a national mindset of peace at any price.

While they have less outward guilt, the Japanese literally wrote peace at any price into their constitution, and frankly it's probably time that changed.

Quoting Pu (Reply 30): Tanks and planes in Norway and Estonia at Obama's order reassure allies.

I won't criticize that as it was the right thing to do, although Obama's response to Russian belligerence, while not half-assed, has been too slow and stopped short.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 31): Perhaps current leaders look back and see what the mistakes were and that we are making strides to not let them happen again.

None of it was a mistake.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 32): And you'd be screaming in rage if China or Russia did that to anyone else. Hypocrite

Nothing hypocritical about it at all. The right move in such a situation would be to arm those under threat, which should be happening now but unfortunately is not for the most part.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 32): Yes, though that flys in the face of the fact the Allied bombing was more destructive, by far.

Being better at bombing is part of how you end up on top.

Quoting Acheron (Reply 32): At the end of the day, nuclear bombs didn't impress the japanese in the context of the firebombing going on since March.

True, especially since surrender was not actually discussed by Tojo's gang until after the USSR declared war on August 9th.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33): Good for Abe then. Japan has the economic and technical capacity to take on more of their own defense and should be encouraged to do so.

Whatever. While the Japanese people have taken peace to heart for six decades and have passed those sentiments through to each generation, Abe has seen fit to circumvent the Constitution. Article 96 of the Constitution allows amendments via 2/3 majority in both houses and a majority vote in special public referendum. He knows the latter will never succeed, which is why they are doing the silly end-run which will be thrown out in court when all is said and done 5-10 years from now.

You mention the economic and technical capacity - but human capacity is also horribly lacking. The young generation of Japanese can barely pay bills without parents' help, much less become mentally fit for military service - and the government knows it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33): Quoting seb146 (Reply 31): Perhaps current leaders look back and see what the mistakes were and that we are making strides to not let them happen again. None of it was a mistake.

By today's standards, it was. Knowing what we know now. Why do you think Israel and Iran have not used nukes? Why do you think USSR and USA have not used nukes? Why do you think Pakistan and India have not used nukes? As horrible as they were, it was probably better in the long run that Hiroshima and Nagasaki happened. It is awful that so many innocent people died, but how many others lived because of it? We need to acknowledge it was a tragedy. Why is that so hard to do?

Quoting seb146 (Reply 35): We need to acknowledge it was a tragedy. Why is that so hard to do?

Because calling it a tragedy makes it sound like an accident. A car accident is a tragedy. An earthquake is a tragedy. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentional shock attacks meant to convince Japan to surrender and avoid the sort of bloodbath US troops found themselves in on Okinawa.

Okinawa was considered the first part of Japan proper to be invaded by the US. The Japanese military pretty much fought to the last man, and much of the civilian population joined in the defense (both voluntarily and by force). Many Okinawans killed their families and committed suicide rather than accept US occupation. The civilian death toll was somewhere between 35 and 50% (nobody knows for sure). The Japanese were preparing the civilian population of the Japanese mainland for the same sort of resistance. Imagine the death toll if we had invaded.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 36): Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentional shock attacks meant to convince Japan to surrender and avoid the sort of bloodbath US troops found themselves in on Okinawa.

True, but this is 2016, not 1945. If you are a person with compassion for your fellow man, then it is still rational and logical to say the attacks, the firebombings, e.g. the totality of suffering of the Japanese citizenry is indeed tragic given it represents the final chapter in nearly 20 years of a brutally repressive military dictatorship nobody voted into power. Millions were killed and sent into famine and flames merely because a few morons in the upper caste declared their territorial aspirations and corporate friends' regional expansion desires as paramount national priorities.

If you are not capable of expressing as much, the only suitable description is jingoistic narcissism.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 27): Reassure key allies and send a message to potential and actual adversaries. Funny you'd mention Boeing since an order from Iran would be a prime example of what happens when you cooperate.

Key allies don't need reassuring or they're not key allies.

Your political friends want to scuttle any Iran deal.

It's actually a good example of my point, if the US "flaunts it" the Iran deal could very much collapse on the Iranian side, with another lunatic elected president, or worse ayatollah, and nothing good will have been accomplished.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33): Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 29): Yes, for those 2 days that the US attacked Japan with atomic weapons, civilians died in place of soldiers. Their civilians in the place of our soldiers. That's what winning looks like. Remember how bad it was for the losers and use it as motivation to work your ass off to make sure you're never faced with that prospect.

I seriously question your morals if you flaunt this. THEIR? As if Japanese civilians were less worthy of life than Americans? It's one thing to be glad you were on the winning side; it's another to not feel the slightest pity about civilians whose only sin was to be born in a land that was on the losing side.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 33): Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 29): However, to be proud of the effort means you somehow think Japanese civilians are less worthy of life...these were ordinary civilians, going on about their daily lives. You, me and all Americans damn well should be proud of it. The Manhattan Project is neck and neck with the moon landing for the greatest thing America has ever accomplished. (Maybe second if you count the idea of America itself)

The engineer in me is very proud of the achievement. It opened new fields in science and engineering. The human in me is concerned that it also opened a chapter where a single bomb has the capacity to wipe out life. The human in me actually pities those who woke up one day, not knowing that later in the day they'd die in an instant or worse, suffer a lifetime of illnesses due to radiation poisoning.

Be proud that you live in a side with the capability to defend itself in the same manner should it be threatened or bombed with nukes. Be proud that you weren't alive to witness the events (either in Japan or in the US).

Don't be proud because "it saved lives"; a civilian in an enemy country has as much right to live as the civilian in your home country. The atrocities of the past are done; let's make sure they don't ever happen again.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 37): If you are not capable of expressing as much, the only suitable description is jingoistic narcissism.

I see. "Agree with me, or I label you a racist and mentally ill." The only suitable response to that would earn me a ban, so I shall refrain.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 40): I see.

I am not sure you do, I would describe it more as "I avoid to create an argument " or I'll not consider that" rather than "I see" because I don't "see" you attempting to see the point he is making and considering it.

You appear to be basing your point on the term "tragedy" and your personal definition of that word as being an accident. But that is not the definition for the word nor how it is solely used. The definition is:

Simple Definition of tragedy

: a very bad event that causes great sadness and often involves someone's death

: a very sad, unfortunate, or upsetting situation : something that causes strong feelings of sadness or regret

: a play, movie, etc., that is serious and has a sad ending (such as the death of the main character)
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tragedy

So the fact that such action was deemed the "best" course of action for all involved, the nations and people of Japan and the USA to create the least number of deaths, could be considered a tragedy.

Why you seem to want to force a difference and disagreement over a words usage to foment an argument with someone is beyond me.

Tugg

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 36): Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intentional shock attacks meant to convince Japan to surrender and avoid the sort of bloodbath US troops found themselves in on Okinawa.

Absolutely not but it proves that a good lie can live forever provided gullible people and a biased education.

Quoting iakobos (Reply 42): Absolutely not but it proves that a good lie can live forever provided gullible people and a biased education.

Lie?

Tugg

Quoting Tugger (Reply 41): Why you seem to want to force a difference and disagreement over a words usage to foment an argument with someone is beyond me.

I'm fine with his basic argument. You (and he) might be right in regards to the word usage. My irritation comes from the end of his post:

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 37): If you are not capable of expressing as much, the only suitable description is jingoistic narcissism.

Which translates to, as I said, "Agree with me, or I label you a racist and mentally ill."

That is not the way to have a civilized discussion.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 36): Imagine the death toll if we had invaded.

Right. But, read the rest of my post. What were their options? How many American soldiers and Japanese soldiers as well as POWs held by Japan would have been slaughtered? How long would it have taken to train Chinese and Russian troops and form alliances with them? It was either the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the tragedy of a full on and dragged out invasion.

I don't know a better word for massive loss of life all at once other than "tragedy" and I will not apologize or change it. Had there been anything like that seen before? Where one people can simply wipe out thousands in a matter of minutes and leave thousands other sick and dying over a period of days, weeks, months? How is that not a tragedy?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 38): Key allies don't need reassuring or they're not key allies.

So you don't say "I love you" to your wife or girlfriend?

Quoting Aesma (Reply 38): It's actually a good example of my point, if the US "flaunts it" the Iran deal could very much collapse on the Iranian side, with another lunatic elected president, or worse ayatollah, and nothing good will have been accomplished.

Iran holds free elections?

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 46): Quoting Aesma (Reply 38): Key allies don't need reassuring or they're not key allies. So you don't say "I love you" to your wife or girlfriend?

I don't tell my parents "I love you", and odds are when I find a significant other I may not utter the phrase as much as other couples do. It's with my actions that everyone can be at ease that "I love them". My entire family is OK with that, and over time I'd like to think a significant other would be too.

At the same time, a country that's a key ally doesn't need to be told over and over again they're a key ally, especially when it's public knowledge who is a much more key ally than who. The day the US starts imposing restrictions of any kind (particularly in the military sense), is the day a country can start worrying about whether they're an ally.

Saudi Arabia is touted as an ally. The day the US moves out of the country and gives the kingdom the middle finger is the day you know the "bond" ended.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 29): This is not one disappointment. It's actually quite heartening to see a shift. It means our generation recognizes the destructive nature of atomic weapons and would be hesitant to use them unless there's no other choice.

Of course we want people to be hesitant to use atomic weapons. You don't throw them around like candy at a parade.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 29): We're often told how the atomic weapons saved lives because it meant invading Japan could be taken off the table. Less soldiers lost, less resources spent. Yes, for those 2 days that the US attacked Japan with atomic weapons, civilians died in place of soldiers. However, to be proud of the effort means you somehow think Japanese civilians are less worthy of life...these were ordinary civilians, going on about their daily lives. Yes, we may have saved thousands of American lives...at the cost of up to a quarter million civilians.

Do you realize there were MANY military targets in both cities that were intended to be destroyed? "Targets of military significance" is a broad term. It includes not just targets that are strictly military, e.g. Naval Air Station *Placeholder Name*, but also those targets that support the military: railyards, factories, bridges, supply depots, etc. Unfortunately, many of those latter targets happen to be surrounded and operated by civilians. It is a stark fact of war that civilians are caught up in fighting. In total war, they're even more exposed because to defeat your enemy requires the elimination of your enemy's ability to wage war. You cannot simply attempt to eliminate only that material used for war and those people in uniform. Technology has advanced making that substantially easier, but civilian casualties will continue to happen so long as civilians support (not politically, necessarily, but physically support) those functions that are necessary for the prosecution of war. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rich with targets of military importance.

But, for the sake of this discussion, let's assume there were no targets of military significance in Hiroshima or Nagasaki and address the issue of the value, relative to one another, of a Japanese civilian and an American solider.

You are the the President of the United States. You have been thrust into the role as the leader of a country that has seen over 400,000 of its military personnel and civilians killed over the last three and a half years. You have a variety of options:

1) Prolong the war by attempting to blockade Japan in the hopes they surrender eventually

Well, there's a small problem with that. Other than some raw materials that are admittedly quite important, Japan is a relatively self-sufficient country. It can survive for a very long time, and it can protect its military assets from destruction by dispersing them through the countryside (which it has already started to do, in preparation for the invasion). Blockading the islands and trying to conventionally bomb the military into submission probably won't work. Additionally, it does nothing to protect anyone in the mainland Asia theaters currently engaged in fighting. That fighting will continue until the Japanese are defeated in open combat, however long that will take. Civilians will suffer the most, regardless, as this option likely will result in the Japanese military taking resources from civilians to sustain itself and the Allies will continue to bomb those locations that are of military significance (as defined above).

2) Continue conventional war by invading the Japanese home islands

If the most recent battles in the Pacific are any indication, hundreds of thousands of people, soldiers and civilians, Americans and Japanese, will die. The death toll amongst Japanese civilians could reach into the millions just from the point of the invasion forward. It is unknown when the Japanese government and military will capitulate; conceivably, they could surrender before casualties reach anywhere near the amount from the Atomic bombings. But, again, the recent battles in the Pacific make fairly clear that this will be a very long and bloody fight. Furthermore, fighting will continue in mainland Asia, only increasing the bloodshed on both sides.

3) Allow the Russians to do the dirty work

This is simply not realistic for a number of reasons. First, the Soviet Union has very little experience with amphibious operations and has very little suitable equipment. It will take the Soviet Union an exceptionally long time to prepare for an invasion of the home islands. Regardless of the Soviet Union's desire to invade Hokkaido by late August, such an endeavor probably will not accomplish much militarily. This is even assuming the Soviets can take the island, which given their limited equipment and experience, is by no means a given. Furthermore, this has the same problem as the previous two, as fighting will continue on mainland Asia. Additionally, given the actions of the Soviet Union in the European theater, it is highly likely that civilians will suffer severely even if they do not actively resist the Soviet forces during any battles and subsequent occupation of territory.

4) Drop the atomic bombs

There is risk to this option, without question. It ushers in a brand-new age of warfare. Furthermore, it assures that even though there are many targets of military significance in the six cities that are possible targets for the two available bombs that there will be massive civilian casualties in addition to those that are purely military. However, there is a possibility that the Japanese government and military will be so stunned by the bombings that they will be willing to capitulate without further fighting. These bombings may end a war that has seen over 60 million people die, most of them civilians. Furthermore, as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States, it is the option that, hypothetically, places American personnel and civilians in the least danger, by far, especially if it does effectively end the war within a short period.

In dropping the atomic bombs, there was no "trade" of Japanese lives for American lives. Many more Japanese civilians would have died in any other option. Maybe most of those who died in those two cities would have lived, maybe not. But for sure, many more would have died elsewhere.

Quote: So, call me a disappointment but I'm glad this shift is happening. There's no need to apologize. What's done is done. Let's just make sure this doesn't have to happen again.

The shift is that more and more people lack understanding of the context of the time, not that people are more hesitant to use atomic weapons.

This was the largest, most violent conflict in the history of the world. Ignoring the context of the time does not make for a compelling argument.

Quoting cjg225 (Reply 48):

Any rational person would take no issue with what you posted above because the analysis is factually correct. But the arguments of strategic value and expediency to the war's end can and should be separate from the issue of Japanese citizens' victimization. They were already victims of their government long before B-29s showed up over every major city.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 44): Which translates to, as I said, "Agree with me, or I label you a racist and mentally ill." That is not the way to have a civilized discussion.

Unfortunately you did not respond to salient points in reply 11, so perhaps I was expressing mild irritation at having to re-state plain information readily available. And I stand by the assertion that not acknowledging the suffering or victimization of the people here by their government displays a callous lack of compassion for one's fellow man.