General Discussion

Kelvin Mace

(17,469 posts)

10. Big difference

Reply to WI_DEM (Reply #5)

Tue Aug 6, 2013, 05:13 PM

Aug 2013

between the question of using nukes on military targets versus civilian targets.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

124 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

IKE: "the Japanese were ready to surrender & it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing" [View all] Faryn Balyncd Aug 2013 OP

WTF would Eisenhower know? jberryhill Aug 2013 #1

Yeah. No military experience of judgment at all. Jackpine Radical Aug 2013 #2

This is, of course.... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #35

Funny how that works, isn't it? Good on you to point this out. Also, Stimson was no HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #38

As was pointed out downthread... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #81

There were plenty of people still alive that could have disputed his account. former9thward Aug 2013 #83

Harry Truman, for one...(nt) Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #85

Really? You think he was both senile and egotistical? How about those "predicted deaths" were the WinkyDink Aug 2013 #86

I didn't say he was senile... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #89

Earmarking for the next time someone objects to a General making all the decisions nt Dreamer Tatum Aug 2013 #3

K&R liberal_at_heart Aug 2013 #4

yet he also said this... WI_DEM Aug 2013 #5

Big difference Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #10

He was refering to small nuclear weapons, mainly fired from artillery arely staircase Aug 2013 #31

Nuclear artillery of the era were roughly equivalent in power to Fat Man and Little Boy. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #113

"Small atomic weapons" Scootaloo Aug 2013 #102

10 to 20 kilotons is not a "small" weapon. Gravitycollapse Aug 2013 #114

you have to recall, too, that Eisenhower was the allied commander in Europe not the Far East WI_DEM Aug 2013 #6

Ergo, rendering him less competent to make an opinion than a DUer circa 2013 jberryhill Aug 2013 #7

I'm lovin you today Jberry! whatchamacallit Aug 2013 #12

Yee-ouch! Iggo Aug 2013 #16

Seems to be many a DU'er in 2013 dbackjon Aug 2013 #25

Yes we did bomb Dresden but.. Tagurrit Aug 2013 #94

You were good until the last sentence dbackjon Aug 2013 #97

And yet, ultimately Kelvin Mace Aug 2013 #13

Like the "who's the best second baseman of all time" question... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #37

2 -10 what's the difference.. Tagurrit Aug 2013 #96

No, we had two.... Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2013 #104

MacAuthur and Truman's Chief of Staff Admiral Leahy also opposed the bomb. former9thward Aug 2013 #84

Also the scumbag who ... Koios Aug 2013 #8

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Aug 2013 #9

Bah, what would he know! Rex Aug 2013 #11

How 'bout we pick this quote instead? jeff47 Aug 2013 #14

Surrender of Japan joshcryer Aug 2013 #52

If you think that Eisenhower would say something in 1963 that would antagonize our best cold war... JVS Aug 2013 #15

+1 JustAnotherGen Aug 2013 #22

So why didn't Truman dispute the account if he said something else? former9thward Aug 2013 #88

Why would Truman want to antagonize an ally any more than Eisenhower? JVS Aug 2013 #90

Yes I read it. former9thward Aug 2013 #98

And you know that nobody contradicted Eisenhower how? JVS Aug 2013 #100

The same way I know what Eisenhower said. former9thward Aug 2013 #103

I'm going to need some evidence of the conspiracy you claim exists JVS Aug 2013 #106

It is your conspiracy. former9thward Aug 2013 #109

You're the one making it up. I'm just saying that I have good reason to doubt Eisenhower's word. JVS Aug 2013 #112

Not just Ike, but General MacArthur said the same thing. bvar22 Aug 2013 #17

got a link to back that claim up re; not a military decision. nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #26

Well, Geek, Lets take a look at the HISTORY. bvar22 Aug 2013 #46

What proof do you have that Japan was ready to surrender, disarm, subject itself geek tragedy Aug 2013 #49

What proof do I have? bvar22 Aug 2013 #54

The Japanese War Council was split 3-3 after Nagasaki and the Soviet declaration of war. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #59

a heaven05 Aug 2013 #95

The links you demand are at the bottom of the OP. Jim Lane Aug 2013 #115

The decision had been made that an invasion would occur if Japan did not geek tragedy Aug 2013 #119

and MacArthur wanted to use them in Korea... dionysus Aug 2013 #61

Bingo! sgtbenobo Aug 2013 #101

So many of the Bomb Defenders today used "Armchair Warrior" as a put down.... Junkdrawer Aug 2013 #18

Happens every year. Iggo Aug 2013 #92

My dad was on Saipan waiting for the order to firebomb Tokyo ... ananda Aug 2013 #19

Yes, perhaps, but for sure if the Japanese had possessed an atomic bomb.. DCBob Aug 2013 #20

Yes and perhaps we should not have been so quick to emulate the worst of their cruel leadership Dragonfli Aug 2013 #24

I think the goal was to eliminate their "cruel leadership" not emulate them. DCBob Aug 2013 #41

by nuking civilians rather than attacking the leadership? What a strange tactic - Dragonfli Aug 2013 #47

I think the nukes effectively eliminated their "cruel leadership" once they surrendered. DCBob Aug 2013 #67

Would have been less sociopathic to blow up the Emperor and not hundreds of thousands of civilians Dragonfli Aug 2013 #70

I doubt "blowing up the Emperor" would have stopped them. DCBob Aug 2013 #72

I've read that the percentage of those unable to experience "empathy".. bvar22 Aug 2013 #124

I think the complete disregard for the deaths of women, children and grannies shown on this board Dragonfli Aug 2013 #21

Your post was hidden for personally attacking me. tumtum Aug 2013 #27

I did not personally attack you Dragonfli Aug 2013 #34

Really? tumtum Aug 2013 #36

An honest evaluation of your empathy free and cowardly defense of the deaths of several thousands of Dragonfli Aug 2013 #39

Spin it any way you want. tumtum Aug 2013 #40

Post removed Post removed Aug 2013 #43

Ahhhh, so your one of these. tumtum Aug 2013 #48

+10000000000000000000000000000 Junkdrawer Aug 2013 #30

I'm a Democratic Socialist and radically anti-war. That said, I am not an absolute pacifist HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #44

That is not only a valid question to ask me, it is a very good one. Dragonfli Aug 2013 #62

How Many Japanese Civilians... Deacon Blue Aug 2013 #73

We will never know, many generals felt there were alternatives to using atrocities as a tactic Dragonfli Aug 2013 #79

It makes a tremendous amount of sense and I am also no expert on what HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #123

If they had one and dropped it on us treestar Aug 2013 #50

Not at all, I do not see their women as less human than our own, I condemn them equally for evil. Dragonfli Aug 2013 #63

It IS that simple, bvar22 Aug 2013 #93

Sickening, isn't it? DeSwiss Aug 2013 #80

Yes, vomit inducing for those of us still possessing souls.... Dragonfli Aug 2013 #82

+1 Good observations. Needed to be said. Skeeter Barnes Aug 2013 #111

Too bad we didn't have one a year sooner. roamer65 Aug 2013 #23

Britain thought it would have the bomb by 1943, and Churchill DavidDvorkin Aug 2013 #28

Yet the Japanese were in many ways much crueler dbackjon Aug 2013 #29

The cruelty sweepstakes will have no winner. The USSR lost 20 million fighting HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #45

That's when it was over for the Nazis. roamer65 Aug 2013 #58

Well, in hindsight, I think you are right. However, at the time, it was far more HardTimes99 Aug 2013 #121

dropping the bombs had less to do with defeating japan than arely staircase Aug 2013 #32

It was the 40's form of "Shock and Awe"....in 2003 it was televised over Iraq. madfloridian Aug 2013 #33

Of course it wasn't necessary. The US just wanted to see what would happen - we experimented on the Flaxbee Aug 2013 #42

Others disagree with him, including other generals treestar Aug 2013 #51

No, The Japanese were in August 1945, BillyRibs Aug 2013 #53

His farwell speech was a warning orpupilofnature57 Aug 2013 #55

An awful thing...but, Hulk Aug 2013 #56

Old arguments. Stinger35 Aug 2013 #57

My pop remembers it differently left is right Aug 2013 #60

Probably from the sound of your Dads story, orpupilofnature57 Aug 2013 #117

Ya, like they were so quick to surrender after 1st bomb. lobodons Aug 2013 #64

why heaven05 Aug 2013 #65

With all due respect to genuine heroes... cab67 Aug 2013 #66

K&R felix_numinous Aug 2013 #68

You Are Forgetting Okinawa Deacon Blue Aug 2013 #69

How could we have been so sure Japan was honestly ready to surrender? DCBob Aug 2013 #71

Here's what made the Japanese accept unconditional surrender. roamer65 Aug 2013 #74

+1 DCBob Aug 2013 #77

I like Ike. PufPuf23 Aug 2013 #75

There are a number of good reasons to like Ike, including his statement about Nixon when asked AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #110

" ...wars cannot be won by destroying women and children" Admiral Leahy Kaleva Aug 2013 #76

More: Bonobo Aug 2013 #78

Ike might not have hated Truman, but it's a point of fact that he deeply disliked him BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #87

There are many photos of them being respectful to one another. AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2013 #108

Yes...recently read "Going Home to Glory," by his grandson David BeyondGeography Aug 2013 #118

Rec and 2nd! nt jimlup Aug 2013 #91

God bless Ike LittleBlue Aug 2013 #99

The Ike stuff is rather self serving dsc Aug 2013 #105

It's not just Ike saying these things... usGovOwesUs3Trillion Aug 2013 #107

Too bad DU wasn't around back then. Niceguy1 Aug 2013 #116

I think many felt guilty about being a part of this and spoke out publilcy.. DCBob Aug 2013 #120

eisenhower is the same guy who was critical of the military industrial complex he helped to build... Javaman Aug 2013 #122