Editorials & Other Articles

bernie_is_truth

(17 posts)

48. you're right

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:59 PM

May 2016

because a pre-bomb surrender was never an option for the Japanese.

Also, a post-bomb surrender wasn't an option for them either.

It took two, and there was still a debate in Japanese leadership circles *after* the second one over whether or not to surrender.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

98 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We didn’t need to drop the bomb — and even our WW II military icons knew it [View all] polly7 May 2016 OP

I agree. I think we could have dropped it on some deserted Island and said you are next, and gotten Hoyt May 2016 #1

small problem with your scenario SCantiGOP May 2016 #28

Don't forget that Japan was still fighting, and people dying every day. AtheistCrusader May 2016 #50

No, it did not need to be. deathrind May 2016 #2

Those fire bombings killed 10's of thousands with each mission packman May 2016 #34

The Tokyo raid killed far more people than either atomic warhead. Short and long term. AtheistCrusader May 2016 #53

But, but millions of American lives were saved by avoiding a ground invasion! RufusTFirefly May 2016 #3

The brainwashing was successful. Scruffy1 May 2016 #35

It's a fascinating and scary phenomenon RufusTFirefly May 2016 #55

There were several. Igel May 2016 #75

Not millions of American's, but millions of Japanese civilians. denbot May 2016 #49

This message was self-deleted by its author longship May 2016 #94

The whole thing hinges on whether Japan actually was "ready to surrender". BillZBubb May 2016 #4

Did you even read the article? RufusTFirefly May 2016 #13

And you know more than Harry S. Truman--even more impressive! BillZBubb May 2016 #44

Haha! I'm afraid you're confusing politics with facts RufusTFirefly May 2016 #54

I'm not confusing anything. Truman's decision was based on facts he knew. BillZBubb May 2016 #58

Rest easy. Only the Bad Guys are war criminals. n/t RufusTFirefly May 2016 #63

Well, duh, good guys aren't war criminals by definition. BillZBubb May 2016 #65

It wasn't the bombings. newthinking May 2016 #14

You are mistaken . . FairWinds May 2016 #16

So, Truman was a war criminal? He just wanted to incinerate Japanese? BillZBubb May 2016 #38

Yes, Truman was a war criminal . . FairWinds May 2016 #61

Well, you are wrong. Truman was no war criminal. BillZBubb May 2016 #64

Jeez Bill, you got the name calling thing down pat . . FairWinds May 2016 #69

Ohhhhh, the "disgusting" card!! FairWinds May 2016 #70

You can demonstrate... zentrum May 2016 #40

They had to test it, no? Helen Borg May 2016 #5

Little Boy was simple, the knew it would work. longship May 2016 #52

I was taught this in middle school (1975). I'm surprised it's a revelation and not common knowledge! TheBlackAdder May 2016 #6

I've always been heartbroken over this and never for one second believed it was necessary. polly7 May 2016 #8

I've always been heartbroken over this and do think it was necessary. Igel May 2016 #77

We had to show the world that there was a new king of the world. LiberalArkie May 2016 #7

Disagree. They were monsters, and they picked a fight with Goliath. closeupready May 2016 #9

The Japanese had shown no propensity for surrender in WWII prior to the bomb; why assume they would? MadDAsHell May 2016 #10

Hiroshima was just one more city totally annihilated... TomVilmer May 2016 #57

I wasn't there and neither were you perdita9 May 2016 #11

I know it sounds great to say you are/were against the A-bomb drops but... bernie_is_truth May 2016 #12

Again, plainly wrong . . FairWinds May 2016 #19

Maybe you could explain your 'plainly' word bernie_is_truth May 2016 #36

"Stats" ? You have no stats. FairWinds May 2016 #60

I listed several stats bernie_is_truth May 2016 #91

See Barton Bernstein, bulletin of the atomic scientists . . FairWinds May 2016 #92

Here's a good read on the topic. longship May 2016 #29

It likely saved my father's life. PADemD May 2016 #73

It also likely save my father's life. TexasTowelie May 2016 #82

My father was a supply ship gunner. PADemD May 2016 #83

The army tried to overthrow the emperor to avoid surrender after Hiroshima Omaha Steve May 2016 #15

Crap, Steve? Really??? polly7 May 2016 #17

Yes really Omaha Steve May 2016 #22

I disagree. Period. And, I get tired of being insulted for thinking differently. nt. polly7 May 2016 #23

It wan't meant as an insult Omaha Steve May 2016 #27

No, It's ok and I'm sorry. Just a bit tired and grumpy, not your fault! polly7 May 2016 #31

war is by definition barbaric, no matter the weapons used bernie_is_truth May 2016 #43

War is barbaric. No shit. nt. polly7 May 2016 #47

i notice you didn't make a choice bernie_is_truth May 2016 #51

We didn’t need to drop the bomb — and even our WW II military icons knew it polly7 May 2016 #59

so many opinions, so many what if's bernie_is_truth May 2016 #62

I'm not a youngster OmahaSteve NoMoreRepugs May 2016 #21

Exactly. nt. polly7 May 2016 #26

Operation Downfall Omaha Steve May 2016 #39

Why should we have treated Japan any different than Nazi Germany gladium et scutum May 2016 #79

I'll agree that 1 million was very unlikely Travis_0004 May 2016 #81

I think our relationship today says it all. yallerdawg May 2016 #18

Indeed, there is some evidence that it was a test on human targets. JohnnyRingo May 2016 #20

Thank you, excellent points!! nt. polly7 May 2016 #24

Exactly. A pre-bomb surrender was never an option, for US. arcane1 May 2016 #32

you're right bernie_is_truth May 2016 #48

I don't know if I'd go that far. JohnnyRingo May 2016 #66

Absolute rubbish! longship May 2016 #45

I used to believe that JohnnyRingo May 2016 #67

Read the fucking history. longship May 2016 #68

Believe me, I have studied the history of WWII all my life. JohnnyRingo May 2016 #71

It was not used to test it on humans!!! longship May 2016 #95

I guess you misunderstood JohnnyRingo May 2016 #97

We used the two different bombs because they were the only two we had. longship May 2016 #98

The Japanese did not immediately surrender after the first bomb was dropped. LS_Editor May 2016 #25

I love the lie that the only time it's ever OK to use a nuke was the two times we happened to do it. arcane1 May 2016 #30

"Bombs save lives." johnp3907 May 2016 #33

The Bomb rlpincus May 2016 #37

It's easy to look back and second guess what should have been done struggle4progress May 2016 #41

One unknown ... Kablooie May 2016 #42

Which begs the question: chknltl May 2016 #46

If US decision-makers believed The Bomb was not necessary, then they had a different motive Martin Eden May 2016 #56

Where was the surrender of the Japanese after the first bomb? LS_Editor May 2016 #84

I wasn't making the argument you are apparently responding to Martin Eden May 2016 #85

About half the posts here must be from Neo-cons . . FairWinds May 2016 #72

Japan's only condition for surrender was keeping the emperor yurbud May 2016 #74

Even after the nukings, the Japanese Government . . FairWinds May 2016 #88

The Russians were getting ready to invade Japan. Gomez163 May 2016 #76

Truth. LS_Editor May 2016 #86

But dropping two, not one, but two nuclear devices showed the word that... guillaumeb May 2016 #78

People are missing the point: Should Obama on behalf of the U.S. apologize for using the bomb twice? YOHABLO May 2016 #80

He has nothing to apologize for. So no. nt hack89 May 2016 #93

heck, atomic histories have found it was used mostly because Groves didn't want to get the MisterP May 2016 #87

So from Omaha Steve we get that Japanese children . . FairWinds May 2016 #89

Damned right. Unbearable. n/t Judi Lynn May 2016 #90

This will not be resolved until way after it happened and the historians weigh the evidence CTyankee May 2016 #96